in other words... i'll be gone all this weekend. If someone could look after /hc/, it really seriously needs it due to a lot of spamming, etc. Thanks :D /s/ seems to be able to fend for itself, so i'm not as worried about it.
mostly /vg/ and some /v/ here, Just got a new much more strenuous job and I need to radically fix my sleep schedule. I'll be either completely ignoring or only lightly touching the /vg/ report queue for the next week or two.
Right now we seem to have a proliferation of "feels" and green text threads, and they've been spiraling into constant off-topic posting. Most /cgl/ users tend not to report these things, so we have to go looking for them. As of today we have a "Feels" thread and a "Confession" thread which have been around for at least the past year and show no sign of changing (to stay on topic) without some form of consistent moderation; however, there have been quite a few more types of these threads as well. Sometimes, the cringe threads tend to also branch into offtopic shitposting.
I agree that those threads are definitely a problem. From what I've seen, more often than not these threads devolve into trolling, people posting things that belong more on /adv/ than /cgl/, people using /cgl/ like their personal blog, and/or general shitposting. I think that the problem lies in when there is more than one of this type of thread on the board at once. I really don't think it's necessary to have a feels thread, a vent thread, a confession thread, etc. all on the board at the same time. The same basic type of content is posted in all of those threads- you could post about things that upset you or confess something you've done (related to cosplay/lolita) in a feels thread with no issue, so I don't think it's necessary to have more than one of these threads on the board at once.
Other than limiting the number of these types of threads that can be on the board at a given time, I'm not sure what else we can do. I don't think that banning these types of threads would necessarily be the answer, despite how hard they can be to handle without constant moderation. I guess the other option would be to be extremely stringent about deleting off-topic posts as soon as they pop up on these kinds of threads, which could also work as well if we all organized our janitoring enough. Either way, unfortunately I'm not sure that I have any good and practical suggestions about what to do with these threads, although I agree that they are a problem.
>>5176 >>5195 The same thing happens on almost every other board that has a specific topic. They want to talk about stuff on their board because "my friends are here". Rather than actually go somewhere where its on topic, they want to blog and talk about other things with people who specifically share their general interest even though its not about that general interest. /v/ gets this pretty bad.
>>5195 >I don't think it's necessary to have more than one of these threads on the board at once. This is probably true, but actually implementing this might result in people complaining "why was this thread deleted but not that thread," or possibly spawning an permanent and incredibly shitty fixture that people end up feeling entitled to have around all the time. I'd be careful about that.
I'm not a big fan of canning threads that move between on and off-topic unless they become spawning grounds for stupidity but it often ends up that way. Something that people used to do in some boards (I actually don't know very much about /cgl/) is tacitly permit these kinds of threads until they start showing up too often, in which case people complain that "we had this shitty thread yesterday fuck off" and the thread mysteriously poofs out of existence.
>>5199 cgl is fairly slow, and the lolita + cosplay community is surprisingly closeknit, so most anons feel like cgl is their community, like >>5197 said, "my friends are here".
Anyhow, the threads have been nonstop for what I can remember, at least three years now, and they've always been riding the lines of 50/50 off and on topic, What I personally do is go through the thread and delete/BR the posts; however, I'm only online at specific periods of the day and it's difficult to keep an eye on them. I don't think they should be removed either, but I'm not sure what options we have, right now what I can think of is: A) More vigilant moderation of the threads B) Amending the sticky to include something more specific in regards to these threads (but then I worry if people would even notice it)
>>5195 /cgl/ here. I'm all for deleting feels threads because they tend to have tons of bait and go off-topic a lot. I feel (ha) that posts in those threads could be posted to an existing, on-topic one. Otherwise, they tend to derail into posters getting upset at the trolls that post about having sugar daddys or whatever heated argument they have that goes on for 200 posts.
Anonymous Moving Threads Through Boards01/24/16(Sun)03:23:07 No.5173
Moving Threads Through BoardsAnonymous01/24/16(Sun)03:23:07No.5173[Reply]
There are a lot of times where I'll see a thread which is a legitimate thread, but is simply on the wrong board. I propose an option to allow moderators and administrators to move a thread to a different board and with such have a warning explaining the action to the OP. Janitors could also have this option, but should the admins want to have more oversight it could have to be approved by a janitor of the board it would be going to or a mod/admin. This would allow people who seek specific information whom are too used to a particular board to branch out to others and as well to realize that board culture isn't an excuse to post whatever you like. This combined with a board specific ban system would glorious, as it would allow us to condemn the shitposters to /b/.
Who is this thread directed towards? There are probably more direct ways to address Hiroyuki.
/qa/, from what I see, is simply 4chan meta discussion without the input of the staff. That's not necessarily a bad thing, even if it somehow results in conspiracy theories towards our competence or lack thereof. Does the board serve a purpose? I suppose perhaps no more so than any other board; I wasn't actually aware boards had to justify their existence in the first place. It seems to me that taking issue with a board because things you don't like are said there runs rather contrary to 4chan as a whole. /qa/ doesn't have to serve a function that's immediately useful to us -it doesn't need to be some sort of substitute for the feedback form (which I'm sure is bombarded 24/7 by so many submissions that simply reading them all must be a full-time task). I think it's important to have some perspective here: /qa/ isn't about us, even when it is. It's about the website we volunteer to serve and whether the discussion there is relevant to us, constructive towards our goals as volunteers, or outright hostile to us has no bearing on whether or not it has a right to exist or the purpose it serves.
Nevertheless, this discussion is as frivolous as /qa/ itself. We don't make decisions on which boards exist and we shouldn't have the power to do so.
>>5124 >Hiro himself has asked users to talk on their respective boards when he's seen an issue Do you have a source for this. If you could dredge up the post in question from the archives it would actually be rather useful.
>>5126 https://desustorage.org/qa/thread/310926/#311793 here he asks to have meta in the affected board
https://desustorage.org/qa/thread/314830/#322303 here again
It seems to me like you weren't around for /q/ when it happened. Feedback was a direct result of /q/'s end state. Less complaining wars and more action with staff response posted and saved whenever taken.
>>5132 >Less complaining wars and more action with staff response posted and saved whenever taken. There are ten staff responses in the whole of this last year and they're all clarifications; not a single one is a "staff action."
I'm sure the mods are taking action based on the feedback but all that action is taking place behind the curtain, unless there's a public response being made somewhere I don't know about.
/gif/ & /wsg/ General ThreadAnonymous12/10/15(Thu)04:03:56No.5085[Reply]
/gif/ & /wsg/ janitor here. Thought I would make a posting to keep stuff related in.
One thing I would like to clarify, are YLYL threads allowed on /gif/, and if not could we perhaps get a warn template made for this? I'm seeing an increasing number of people report the YLYL threads on /gif/ and then comment on the thread telling them to go to /wsg/.
The split between /gif/ and /wsg/ provides a place for porn, and a place for YLYL threads. /gif/ isn't starved for content and doesn't need SFW YLYL threads, so please delete them if you see them. In the absence of a warn template, mods can give a custom warning if you think one person is repeatedly remaking a thread.
>>5086 This is fine, but most YLYL threads created on /gif/ are not porn-focused and should be deleted.
/wsg/ janitor, there are a number of standard YLYL images that try to get posted over in /wsg/ that are not worksafe due to gore as well as nipples and dicks.
Often though, in the stretch for content posters will just dump their webm folders which are mostly worksafe funny pictures.
/somgg/ - Spitting on moot's Grave GeneralAnonymous09/25/15(Fri)23:11:37No.4899[Reply]
With moot finally giving hiro the keys to the kingdom and /qa/ back up for now, everyone is talking about how all possible boards should be created, deleted, split and merged at once. And one or two other site suggestions too.
So I figured now would be the best time to start up a discussion of how our moderation practices and policies could be improved. I don't know what ideas the mods and other higher-ups have or haven't discussed amongst themselves, so if they've got some input that they can let slip, or if an idea presented here isn't feasible for reasons us janis don't know, that'd be helpful to hear about.
imho, the biggest problem I see is the lack of communication with the community. Rules inevitably leave a lot of room for interpretation, and even when we're trying to enforce them in an unbiased manner, it leaves a lot of questions for the users about why this is allowed or that isn't, why was I banned, why wasn't that other anon. And if nobody else is filling in those blanks for them, they'll fill them in themselves with their own made up reasons and repeat them until they're accepted as fact. To some degree this is inevitable because of the nature of the 4chan community, but I think to a large degree it's preventable if we would just clarify why we took the actions we did.
Obviously, the implication here would be to make more mod/admin posts or stickies when they're necessary to address ongoing issues on the boards as they crop up. Janitors who're more familiar with the board at hand could inform the mods of the general situation and ask the mods if they'd publicly put in a word of clarification.
The two arguments against this that I can think of are 1) that it's just too much work for the mod team, which is understandable but I can't know if that'd be the case, and 2) that mod posts are too disruptive to threads. To that I say, mod posts are usually needed in threads that are already facing disruption, and wouldn't be frequent enough to make a (cont)
>>5004 It's not a matter of lacking consensus. There simply isn't an established policy for every odd thing you might ask a mod about. For things that do have established policies, can you give some concrete examples of this occurring?
I'd think if people understood important reporting is to the moderation, it'd make our jobs easier even with all the garbage reports. A PSA would be nice.
>>5016 I have to echo this, and I've heard other janitors expressing the same as well. I often come across posts suggesting that we janitors/mods aren't doing our jobs, only to see an empty report queue. As far as I know I'm the lone janitor for my board, so there's no way I'm going to catch every rule violation, especially those left unreported.
On the other hand I sympathize with those janitors who frequently deal with 100+ reports at a time and don't want more.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.