>>3306
>fair enough. That rule is basically just to prevent that any anon goes and posts in a thread: "Hey, this faggot is compiling stuff of the fandom. What an autist".
The rule also was to dissuaded the idea that this would be som kind of /cow/ or discussion of every little bit of juicy drama going on in th fandom. Though some of that, perhaps a lot of it, I wouldn't call irrelevant, my thoughts were of people just wanting to contribute to start stuff. X poster is a beta cuck! You get the picture.

>>3307
>I think this serves for its purpose considering that it was created at the time when the explosion was happening.The only change that would happen (I am implying without having any recent poll in my mind), is that there could be a bigger percentage of fans having more tolerance to previous gens (a slight increase about gen 1 for the most part).
>As for the rest, an updated poll would basically reaffirm the same answer despite gen 4 facing a lot of change in it.
That's basically want I'd expect.

>>3305
>that explains why you set that number as the "official" number for this topic. Although I mostly think that this can be considered as a coincidence. So the reason behind to claim it as a truth to establish a revision is not all that solid even though the studies are what they historically show about it.
Considering I've said that I distrust all statics attempts to try to measure a nebulous and fluid online fandom, agreed. But it's just interesting how it showed up as a pattern that holds in a way.

>well, it would be nice to figure it out what lead them to add the brony term into the description of the core site.
Though it will take me awhile to gather stuff before I decide to make a post about it, and I still have to investigate further. I think I've found some interesting stuff relating to some hostility on the furry to bronies.