>>566
>But questions will facilitate discussions
Well, first of all, I want to clear up the vision for the kind of content that Mathchan looks to host. The \textit{potentially surprising} truth is that I don't actually want there to be much of a discussion on the on-topic boards such as /math/. Let me put it like this: 4chan is known to have image dumping boards such as /gif/, /wsg/, /c/, /cm/, /w/ etc. Similarly, Mathchan's boards are intended to be dumping grounds for mathematical knowledge, and that is supposed to be their primary purpose. If there's a thread about calculus, I want people to dump everything there is to know about calculus, just like if there's a thread about K-On on /c/, anons dump any images that pertain to K-On, even though they don't even necessarily discuss K-On at all. 

You may pick a book, make a thread, and post every single theorem in the book, with zero discussion. That thread is, in fact, what I would consider to be an \textbf{ideal} Mathchan thread. Discussions in the thread are not forbidden of course, but they are only secondary. The primary objective of Mathchan is to have as much mathematical content as possible, and only the secondary objective is to enable discussion of this content. You should try have those order of priorities in mind. 

What this means in practice is that if you make a thread on, for example, combinatorics, you should focus on posting everything you personally find interesting or important combinatorics. You should not tailor your thread in such a way invite other users in (e.g. "Does anybody here know combinatorics?" "Does anybody wanna try this problem?") and you should focus solely on posting about combinatorics itself. If other users contribute problems to your thread or eventually take over your thread, that's fine. If nobody does, that's also fine. The point is, you should just create a thread on any topic you want, and elaborate on it for how many posts you want, with \textbf{little to no regard} to whether there's anybody who actually cares about that topic and will post in your thread. 


The bottom line: please treat Mathchan as more of a \textbf{content dump} (i.e. more like 4chan /c/), and less of a \textbf{discussion forum} (i.e. less like 4chan /a/). 


Ideally, reading Mathchan threads should feel like reading a book and less like reading a chat room. I will develop systems to reward these kind of threads and incentivize their creation and usage of embedding features that Mathchan has.

>Your rules are very poorly worded, for example 4g:
>you could easily be talking about the works of any popular mathematician. 
You're interpreting Rule 4g incorrectly. Discussions about  mathematician's \textbf{works} on mathematitcs are always on-topic, regardless of their celebrity status. Similiraly, a mathematician's opinions on mathematics itself is also on-topic. On the other hand, discussions about mathematician's views on race or transgender issues for example are not on-topic. The point of the Rule 4g is that off-topic issues (e.g. politics) don't suddenly become on-topic just because a famous mathematician espouses them. Neil deGrasse Tyson saying something about astronomy is /as/ but him saying something political on Twitter is not /as/. A tech youtuber's opinion on tech is allowed, but discussing their personal political views is not allowed.

Discussing political views of individuals is, of course, completely allowed on off-topic boards like \href{/off/}{/off/ - Lounge}.