Previous Thread: >>3109515/edg/ is the home of 1girl posting. Here, we share AI-generated pics of sexy anime girls and discuss latest advancements in 1girl-related technology.Remember to keep it /e/, as per board rules. If unsure about what you can or cannot post here, consult the sticky thread.> FAQ (check here first)https://rentry.org/edg_faq> Local UIsForge Classic (easiest and simplest for SDXL): https://github.com/Haoming02/sd-webui-forge-classicForge Neo (supports newer tech like Flux and WAN): https://github.com/Haoming02/sd-webui-forge-classic/tree/neoComfyUI (node based UI, most extensible with custom nodes): https://github.com/comfyanonymous/ComfyUI>Online Image GenFree no account: https://frosting.ai/ | https://perchance.org/Free Account Required: CivitAI, Tensor.art, SeaArt.ai, pixAIPaid Only: NovelAI>Catbox:4chanX Catbox/NAI prompt userscript: https://rentry.org/hdgcb> Resources and guidesUseful links: https://rentry.org/sdg-linkTags: https://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki_pages/tag_groupsUpscalers: https://openmodeldb.infoWAN Video Gens: https://github.com/Wan-Video/Wan2.2>Useful Extensions/Custom NodesADetailerTag AutocompleteStealth PNG InfoInfinite Image BrowsingLama cleanerRegional PrompterControlNetDynamic Prompts> LoRAsLoRa training: https://rentry.org/59xed3LoRA Collections:https://rentry.org/illustrious_loras_n_stuffhttps://rentry.org/trashcollectshttps://rentry.org/zp7g6https://rentry.org/hdglorarepo> /edg/ logoOP: https://files.catbox.moe/uc2ntj.png | Anchor: https://files.catbox.moe/bx1lo2.png (more color schemes in the FAQ Rentry)> Related generals>>>/b/degen>>>/aco/sdg>>>/d/ddg>>>/g/sdg>>>/h/hdg>>>/trash/sdg>>>/u/udg>>>/vt/vtaiLink Placeholder
request anchor
Previous Thread Highlights>>3108765>>3108766
Highlights from the actual previous thread.According to my own completely different set of arbitrary criteria
>>3110491What can I say? I'm a Pink fan
>>3110491>>3110492That was a good thread.
more highlights from the previous thread (if you're into kill la kill)
By this point I do not wonder why he does things or how much effort he puts in ruinning the threads.The thing I'm curious about is how a "perfect" thread is on his head. I mean, we know the things he doesn't like to see, but it reached a point where I legit wonder what he would like to see, how he thinks the thread should be.
>>3110491>>3110492>>3110495These are fun, do the news channel ones next!
>>3110497>The thing I'm curious about is how a "perfect" thread is on his headEven if a "Quality" thread hits him in the head he will still complain about it.
>>3110500Is that a Blue Archive halo? Kinda a cool one if it is.
>>3110497lol wait, why? Are you assuming that the guy who posted the Pink highlights is the spammer? Nobody else is allowed to make tongue in cheek observations about the state of the thread?
Highlights from the previous thread for anyone who enjoys the "huge breasts" tag1/2
>>31105032/2
>>3110502Rather it's that, whether the spammer is one person or is an archetype of malicious poster is irrelevant at this point.
>>3110498I agree. Everyone should be allowed to post their own highlights. It's not like we get to vote on the existing ones
>>3110506Nothing's stopping you. Might get negative responses, but the "real" ones get those as well.
>>3110502I can always be wrong, but I don't think there aren't much people out there that would expend that much effort in "make tongue in cheek observations".Any """sane""" person on these threads that had the time to select all those pink images and make two different collages would probably expend that time in genning something THEY like instead of putting that time and effort in "making an observation"I can't guarantee is the spammer, but the chances are high
>>3110506>Everyone should be allowed to post their own highlights.No one said the opposite; of course you can make them. But same as that regular highlights are subjected to criticism and personal valuations about the person who did them, the ones you post can be subjected to the same treatment.
>>3110505>spends a paragraph speculating about what "he" wants>gets challenged on it>suddenly the spammer is an abstract archetypeRemarkable.
>>3110510Given the damage you've done to the general, can you really expect otherwise?
>>3110508>I can always be wrongYou are.>there aren't much people out there that would expend that much effortIt's called Tampermonkey. It takes 30 seconds.>Any """sane""" person...would probably expend that time in genning something THEY likeThey do, frequently. In fact, I posted the Nick Wilde Pink. Like I said, just a tongue-in-cheek observation to open the new thread.>I can't guarantee is the spammer, but the chances are highIt's not. Happy to proofread any more head canon that you're working on.
>>3110503>>3110504Maybe filter out all the spam?
>>3110515just putting in Pink solves most of the issues, unless you in fact care more about "thread quality" than about your own experience
>>3110515Its sort of sloppy spamtranny included his own spam in his highlights innit
>>3110508>I can't guarantee is the spammer, but the chances are highIndeed. The chances that he is bump spamming again like he did in /h/ is also high:>>3104577>>3100920>>3108363>>3107576>>3106903He is basically trying to speed up the threads falling off the board to keep the mods from nooticing too much.
>>3110502It's occams razor mate, please try to be rational about this.
>>3110522You guys keep misusing Occam's Razor, and it's hilarious.Occam's razor is:>Among explanations that fit the evidence equally well, prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions.You assume nobody except the spammer could make a joke about highlights.That's not fewer assumptions, anon.Occam's razor would be "an anon made a joke".
>>3110513>head canonyoure not fooling anyone, this is favorite word for you
>>3110527Kinda outing yourself as a midwit. Try again in the original latin. "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate".
>>3110488Requesting this (https://files.catbox.moe/9ljkr8.png) with Skyla (Pokemon).
>>3110536>quotes the latin>still misapplies the logicGenuine question, is this ragebait?You'd need additional evidence to show why "the spammer did it" requires fewer assumptions than "an anon made a joke."
>>3110547If it:> talks like the spammer> is innervated by the same mean spirit as the spammer> shares the tastes and proclivities of the spammer> is active during the same times as the spammerit is illogical to invent anonymous 3rd parties to explain the observed phenomena. It's not very rigorous, but you're probably expecting too much from a 1000 year old theologian. It's a valid application of the razor.
THINGS SPAMTRANNY DOES NOT LIKE >:(>highlights>pink kitty>women>sfw>latin>smooches>minorities>pagpagChat, what else am I missing?
