moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)17:53
No.154510

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)17:53 No.154510

ITT: I go eat dinner and come back to read your feedback later tonight.

I hope the janitors who get accepted are all NEETs.

>>154510
Well hopefully this new system cuts down on the "Why was I banned threads"

Could be cool, but I hope they improve the report system too. A report queue doesn't seem to be ideal.

>>154510
How was your dinner?

>>154515
But isn't that part of /q/ueef culture? /end sarcasm

>>154510
M00t, why do you neglect /q/ so? you hardly post here anymore.

Ok moot, here's a quick question. Assuming that you are going to add more janitors to the system, does this mean that you are also going to add new mods as well? I am happy that you are accepting more janitors, but it would also make sense that you would add more mods together with more janitors.

File: 1346709566271.jpg-(43 KB, 539x479, desustare2a.jpg)

>We will begin accepting janitor applications on September 9th, and will only accept them for 24 hours.

It's about time! Moot I'm assuming this is EST, correct?

I like it. Never gotten banned because I actually follow the rules but if I do it seems like a nice system.

I dont know if I like this new system. Ive been banned using a standard message of "posting trolls/... outside of /b/" couple of times over the week. Could the ban system be changed so we can see what comment we're banned for? Some of the bans dont make sense as I dont even remember trolling that much

>>154525
Some non-biased mods would be nice too.

I am someone summarize it quickly? I'll read the full thing tomorrow when I wake up.

How frequently will you be accepting applications for new mods/janitors?

File: 1346709734129.gif-(30 KB, 495x434, mods fags.gif)

Better than the old system, but it still doesn't help when I've been posting all day and have no idea which of my 50 posts from that afternoon happened to piss off a mod.

(It's not like I'd change my behavior or anything, it'd just be nice to know...)

>because we received over 9,000 applications
I hope this wasn't intentional, in all honesty the number seems low compared to the amount of people I imagine would relish having such authority.

If I might ask, what goes into the "review process" is it just looking for right/wrong answers and good timeslots? I assume it's just picking the people you like the best who make the most coherent case.

>>154525
He will probably promote some of the janitors.

Hey moot. /v/ here. Thanks for legitimizing "/v/ culture". I completely agree, shitposts like "Deep Sea Generals" are the perfect way to combat the gigantic issue we have with offtopic bullcrap.

in before sticky

>>154532
1. Ban messages are preset and show exactly what rule you were banned for. This also means mods can ban people faster.
2. Janitor apps open on September 9 and will be open for 24 hours.

>>154544
Ah, sounds good. Thanks.

>>154532
Instead of typing up some irrelevant bullshit reason to ban you when you get on their nerves, the mods now have to select an irrelevant bullshit reason from a drop-down menu.

>>154529
Well stop being a fucktard and actually contribute to discussion.

>standardized ban reasons based on the global rules

I feel that some of the global rules are incredibly vague and could be used to ban for just about anything. Rule 6 (the quality rule) in particular. I hope the new ban system will also show you the post you were banned for, in order to account for this.

a few years ago i got banned for furry porn on /v/ and the ban reason said
"This belongs on /h/"

>>154550
Given 100 posts a day an 1 random troll comment. "OMG CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION INSTEAD OF TROLLING ALL DAY" It just seems like a retarded shit to me. in anycase, the point was we need a way to find out which comment/s made the mods mad enough to ban us.

>>154532
In summary:

>4chan is super awesome
>Mods now get a drop-down box to select ban reasons and lengths from, to avoid ambiguity.
>Janitor applications are going to be accepted for 24 hours on September 9th.
>At some point this month moot is going to waste a few hours of his weekend to do a Q&A on /q/

>>154552
That.

Due to the vague rules, mods can and will ban you for no real reason whenever the hell they feel like and it's totally legal.

I honestly feel sorry for people who try to use 4chan without dynamic IPs.

It's a good system but so many of the rules are pretty vague so sometimes people have no clue EXACTLY what they're being banned for. New system + link to post that got the person banned would be completely perfect.

Also FUCK YEAH APPLICATIONS.

Also moot if you read this, there is a janitor in/co/ that is abusing his power by deleting posts pointing out the offtopic nature of certain threads while leaving them up.

>>154538
He made a joke. Get off your high horse.

>>154560
Fuck them. We need Nazi moderation.

>>154551
Because it means now when you get banned you get banned for "Rule 5- NWS content on a WS Board" rather than "BANNED FAGGOT."

Although as good an idea as this is I do hope it allows the mod to elaborate on the rule being violated if they choose to do so.

>>154552
Do people seem to forget that posting on 4chan is a privilege and not a right?

I'm not sure how effective this new system will be, but I'm excited as all hell for new janitors.

Moot, when you get back, can you tell us whether or not some of the current janitors will be getting promoted to moderator status?

>>154563
You know theres sites like reddit with nazi moderations right? 4chan was supposed to be a place without "rules" it was supposed to be community driven not mod driven. I dont know why moot listens to vocal few who wants 4chan to be reddit/forum shit

>>154563
I agree. We need our gods to be less hippy new testament and more drowning the entire planet.

>>154562
He made a joke.
I went along with the joke.
Get off of YOUR high horse.

>>154571
And look at what anarchy brought us. See
>>154568

>>154563
Not Nazi moderation or "If I feel like it" moderation, but a decent middle ground

>>154571
I just want off-topic shit to go on /b/.

>>154577

Get out of here

Nobody likes you
Honestly, being a Janitor probably sucks. Okay, you can delete threads, on what, 2 boards?

and submit ban REPORTS?

Sounds like fun!

>>154574
Yes, I know that. It just seems like moot is losing sight of things and slowly making 4chan into a regular forum, complete with usernames/heavy moderations, etc

I think that pony spammer has a dynamic ip or something

>>154576
That would be nice

>>154585
Oh please, there is still no effective way to moderate shit on 4chan with the widespread ban evading going on, theres an example ITT for fucks sake.

Also, moot, how much discussion goes on for "what counts as primary-secondary-tertiary"? On /v/, some mods delete Secondary threads, while others let Tertiary ones stay.

>>154585
There is nothing wrong with heavy moderation as long as it keeps feel shit and other garbage on the appropriate boards. It seems as if the only people who dislike the moderation are shitposters themselves.

>>154586
Just to make it clear for everyone, that guy is just pretending to be retarded. He comes here once in a while.

>>154585
Standardizing ban reasons is not making 4chan any more like a regular forum.

>>154542
Perhaps if /v/ was coordinated enough to spam vidya in off-topic shitposts, things would be marginally better.

>>154585
No. Nazi moderation means you post your shit in relevant forums. Food stuff goes in /ck/, vidya goes in /v/, tv series goes in /tv/, feels goes in /r9k/ and shitposting goes in fucking /b/. I am sick and tired of seeing half of /sp/ flooded with off topic shit posting at any hour of the day, and I've been told it's the same on /mu/ and several other boards.

Bring the Gestapo-like moderation. Please.

>>154582

see

>>154588

I feel like Janitorial duties will get boring really fast

>The application consists of a few pieces of information about yourself such as which boards you browse and what hours you're available to help out, and three long-form questions.
>Three long-form questions
I assume they will be posted... soon? (Nah, who am I kidding, they will be posted last-minute.)

Although I suppose it's good that there's more to the application than "tell us why you are awesome." It looks like maybe 4chan's team might be getting more professional! Nah, I fully expect the current team (with a few exceptions) to treat this like their personal power trip, like all moderation is currently handled.

>Every global and board specific rule has been imported into a drop-down list in the ban panel, and moderators must now select from a set of pre-populated ban reasons and lengths, all of which are codified in the Rules.
>all of which are codified in the Rules

While this is a step forward, you will now reap what you have sown. And what you have sown is vague rules. Board-specific rules vary in codification, and I can see this becoming problematic for the boards with one or two board-specific rules.

>>154596
>spam vidya in off-topic shitposts
Shitposting always leads to more shitposting. And vigilantism made certain games taboo for no fucking reason at all.

File: 1346710697275.png-(800 KB, 906x682, 1274237164795.png)

http://archive.foolz.us/q/thread/143178/#144366

My sense of self-importance is now larger than the sun

Whenever moot gets back, I'd like an answer to this question: how specific is janitor training? Like, do you just show them the rules and let them go, or is it like "okay homolust threads on /a/ are fine, and a once a week Toonami thread on /co/ is fine, etc etc"

I just don't want to see drama over new janitors deleting threads that have been allowed by moot and mods

>>154568
Sure, it's a privilege. If users feel that privilege is being unfairly and arbitrarily removed though, it leads to frustration and ultimately loss of respect for the rules at all.

File: 1346710756371.jpg-(35 KB, 550x381, noo.jpg)

>>154602
>It would be quite kewl if we got 1 board for each of the mane 6

>6 pony boards
>0 furry boards

>>154610
Stop giving it attention.

Or better yet, moot, why don't you take the advice I posted here
>>154431

>>154510
Hey moot, any ETA on a stickied official board suggestion thread? People have been really anxious about getting their ideas across.

Is the reason why we haven't gotten one yet because you're putting up a new board or two soon already? If so, any hints as to what they are, or at least confirmation that they're often-requested boards?

>>154582
>Honestly, being a Janitor probably sucks. Okay, you can delete threads, on what, 2 boards?
I only care about two boards, and it would be grand to wipe away the shitposts I come across.
>>154601
Unfortunate. The problem is, partially, that two opposite behaviors play into the shitposting: Not showing disapproval shows to people who see the thread that they are accepted on the board, and showing disapproval is met with "U mad lylylyl" and what-have-you.

I wish janitors didnt burn out so fast. I could never be a janitor so I cant speak to how tedious their position is, but every time they open, we see increased moderation for a few weeks then everything goes back to normal like nothing happened.

>>154621

Exactly.

Basically, all that work for nothing.

4chan is gone.

>>154617
Agreed, that should be a new global rule or something, idiots who respond to chronic shitposters probably are not well-versed in ban evading themselves.

>>154622
Why are you sideways? Stop that Rainbow.

>>154592
>There is nothing wrong with heavy moderation
Heavy moderation doesnt mean high accuracy. With heavy moderation, you will lose out on many good threads/topics. The price of heavy moderation is high diversity. Heavy moderation limits topics to a very minimal amount which if kept up becomes stagnent. It may work with smaller boards where there isnt much content to begin with, but with bigger boards like /a/ or /v/, heavy moderation doesnt work. Both of those 2 boards rely on user dynamics. People's ability to creatively spark user interactions gives those 2 boards a dynamic feel to it. Limit those interactions with heavy moderation and threads/posts become boring. Given that the whole imageboard culture are based on user dynamics, if the dynamics is lost, the boards become stagnent and boring.

>only people who dislike the moderation are shitposters
The fact is "shitposting" is defined so vaguely that it can be refered to any post that someone doesnt like. So I dont buy this reason at all.

>>154621
Then maybe moot should have more mods. Many more mods. And have them go in shifts.

>>154597
>feels go in /r9k/

NO. I browse /r9k/ when I can stomach seeing my love being butchered by those threads, and if there's Nazi moderation I want the feelfags to go away and never come back.

>>154621
I'm pretty sure it's because moot doesn't make enough janitors. Here's what he says

>More than 20 million people will visit 4chan in a given month, and of those visitors, 2 million will submit almost 25 million posts. In contrast, there are less than 50 volunteer moderators and janitors.

No wonder 4chan is going to shit. We need much more janitors this time. Like at least 200 for the whole of 4chan. The fast boards like /v/ would need at least 30 to 40 janitors.

File: 1346711077284.jpg-(53 KB, 472x365, furry awesome2.jpg)

>>154612
>noone wants furboard
liesssssssssss

I know this will be met with controversy, but there should be a distinction between bans and probations, like a certain other website.

Also janitors should be able to issue temporary bans for their board.

>>154630
>In shifts
That's stupid. Besides, due to timezones their already basically in "shifts"

How about including the post you were banned for in the ban message? Plenty of other imageboards do this.

>>154637
but bans cost :tenbux: on that site, this site is completely free, how would bans and probations work on 4chan

wtl;dr

fuck it moot, I'm not a fucking literary critic

Anyone here think I can learn everything there is to know about extensions by the 9th for Janitor apps? Where should I start?

>>154644
This. The reasons given are way too vague.

>>154648
Don't you only need to know how to work IRC and be an active contributing member of your board?

>>154648
Pretty sure you just have to know how to install the extension and maybe change a few options. I do wish there was a Firefox version though. I don't want to have to join the botnet to be a janitor.

>>154648
You need to know how to use/install/update extensions, you can learn that in 5 minutes (if not less)
>>154655
Use chromium, It should be compatible. moot?

>>154617
Well, you see this shit:
>>>/soc/12725796
You see the sager still trying to troll longer after that thread's dead? Some are just that autistic and ignoring them does nothing

>>154648
I'm more interested in what IRC knowledge is needed. Is it enough to know how to join channels and use most of the basic / commands and such?

>>154664
>banning samefagging
>destroying a piece of 4chan culture

pick two

In order to increase moderation accuracy, why not change the moderation system so that more than one mod/janitor has to delete/ban a person before they are banned?

Like a jury, if you will. A two or three person jury, but still. Or a system of checks and balances.

Basically, people report a thread->janitors decide if it's worth deleting, cast DELETE votes->thread deleted if there are more than X delete votes->janitors can escalate to BAN request->Mods decide if ban request is valid

Will cut down on mods/janitors
1) Being interpreters
2) Going on power trips
3) Deciding that boards can't talk about something they (janitors) don't like

Will encourage formation of cabals, though. Then again, it's not like the 4chan team and the janitors are not already a cabal.

>>154544
But what if a mod just for the hell of it choses a the spam option just because you said something he did not like?

We need to have the option to see the post you were baned for.

>>154671
>Using samefagging as a form a shitposting
No Eugene, YOU are the cancer

>>154673
that will increese the time it takes for them to bann a thread i think?

Well, wonder how the internal fights will be handled. One person's shit posting is another's valuable content.

>>154678
Yeah this is exactly what will happen. Bans already are not handed out enough, its not like we need a jury of peers for 4chan, its nothing like being accused of rape or murder. Ban first, ask questions later.

I hope the revised ban system won't mean less bans, that's the exact opposite of what I want

>>154673
The goal is to increase moderator efficiency, not have it plummet.

RULES?!

MODERATION?!

FUCK YOU MOOT

YOU ARE DEAD TO ME, YOU-YOU DOUBLE NIGGER!

YOU WANT A BAN? YOU WANT A RULES?
MODERATOR PIG DISGUSTING!

GO BACK TO FACEBOOK

SPOILER ALERT:
UR A FAGET

0/10 WOULD NOT OBEY

File: 1346711942763.jpg-(43 KB, 400x300, WuMA1160.jpg)

how many % increese in banns will this change do?

>By standardizing ban reasons and lengths and making sure they correspond to the posted rules, we hope to make life better for everyone on the site. Moderators can perform their tasks more efficiently, banned users will have more insight into why they were banned, and everyone will benefit from rule-infringing content and offenders being removed from the site more quickly.

THANK YOU BASED MOOT

Fucking moderators can take over their damn board if they pleased. Power-tripping faggots.

I am worried that new janitors will get rid of stuff I like, such as stream threads in /b/ or shit hit the fan threads in /k/, but will leave the stuff I don't like such as roll threads, avatarfags, and obvious trolling on blueboards. Just my preference but I hope they improve the boards overall.

I also worry that having standard responses to hide behind will not make mods more accountable. It may under some circumstances inform users what they did wrong so they can correct themselves in the future, if they are specific enough, but that is only part of the problem. It seems like in response to unchecked police discretion state legislatures pass a ton of laws police can use as a pretext to justify the previous behavior.

All in all I am optimistic but cautious. If had I more free time I would apply to be a janitor.

>>154690
That's why I said we need non-biased mods

>>154690
As a rule /b/ cannot have any janitors. Literally anything that doesn't break us law is allowed in /b/.

MOOT

Please post the explanations that will be given for each of the rules when a person is banned.

I feel a long explanation on the ban page would be good.

>>154694
No, there are global rules that apply to /b/

>>154655
You HAVE to have Chrome? fuck. All hate aside I only have 500 megs of memory on my comp. How good is Chrome with memory and speed?

>>154657
Is Chromium as good as 4chanX?

>>154673
Troikas were a common feature of the soviet judicial systems. They did provide a certain degree of stability in punishment

The problem is that you can't exactly kill offenders permanently on 4chan. They come back to fast. You need something much more rapid. Legalism is great, but the moment it starts to seriously slow down ability to act you've already lost

spot checks and a system of routine oversight checking is really the only thing feasible in these circumstances

>>154692
Agreed. Biased mods are a problem.

>>154692
>non-biased mods
No such thing. Everyone is biased.

MOOT HAS SOLD OUT

4CHAN IS MAINSTREAM NOW

NORMALFAGS RULE THIS LAND

THE FBI MONITORS YOUR POSTS

ABANDON SHIP
ABANDON SHIP
ABANDON SHIP

>>154701
Chromium is chrome without the google botnet

>>154699
I think he means that since all of the recent janitor applications have excluded /b/ it is safe to assume that only moderators oversee that board to enforce the rules. Not saying I agree just guessing at his line of thought.

Moot why don't you let us have a drop down list for reporting?

The same that the mods have so users can report the rule being broken, which lets mods go through more efficiently.

>>154510
what are you having for dinner?

Also, we need a new reporting system that allows us to pick the broken rule we are reporting for from a drop-down menu, to help the mods out. Simple list of global rules, something like this:

>You are reporting post #12345, please select a reason from the drop-down menu:
>trolling
>spam/advertisement
>nsfw image
>ponyfag
>avatarfag
>etc etc

Maybe make it to where we can select multiple broken rules to help build better context for the mods?

File: 1346712340769.jpg-(29 KB, 640x480, 1344066022427.jpg)

>mfw people think being a janitor means you get to make up your own rules for the board and enforce them however you please

>>154681
>One person's shit posting is another's valuable content.
This is especially true if anyone here browses /tv/. I'm glad the mods finally officially took a stand and changed the rules to outlaw waifu threads, but honestly it doesn't appear to have lessened the amount of them.

>>154708
Well they can be biased, but not let it affect their jobs (hopefully).

File: 1346712438481.png-(131 KB, 1900x924, flash.png)

How do you feel about /f/, moot?
Have you considered remodeling it?

The board's setup isn't good for discussion, and the board hasn't really gone anywhere since 2006. It even uses "Marked for deletion (old)" still.

Do you have any plans for updating /f/?

>>154506
>>154510
I think that the news post is actually a pretty good sign and some of the changes mentioned by Moot seemingly will help moderating this place and are a good start, but I still think we'll need progressively more mods and janitors working around the clock and more explicit moderation to really "fix" many of the issues around here - at least in more high volume, fast moving boards, and especially in the more "psychotically inclined", like /b/. Some suggestions here if you will, Mootles:
1. Explicit moderation: messages like the "USER WAS BANNED FOR..." or at least some sort of feedback given to reporting users and others shown for at least 1 minute or 2 before "self-deletion" of the post/thread in question, to make sure the people trying to help know they are actually doing something and encourage others to report bad posts/threads.
2. Make the number of reports per users WAY bigger: depending on the type of rule- or law-breaking thread we're talking about, there are usually 200+ "offending" posts that are not the OP, and there may be threads upon threads of this type, being created and recreated consecutively, while our reporting limit exhausts in 1/4th or less of one of those and they are not deleted, since the OP itself didn't break any rules explicitly.
3. Get us a way to report entire threads at a time instead of having to report post by post, since the rule- and law-breaking content and/or information can be spread throughout MANY posts, making it almost impossible for many of us to make it clear to mods and janitors how the thread is against the board's or global rules. Besides, it would help us not having to "waste" our entire report limit on one rule- or law-breaking thread.
...

>>154510
CAN YOU GET SOME FUCKING JANITORS WHO ACTUALLY BROWSE BOARDS

I mean, /sp/ keeps talking about "bro culture", but it's just shitposting now, even though there were some threads that were acceptable when no sports were on. Some random dude who's been browsing /sp/ for a week wouldn't know that.

>>154690
>obvious trolling on blueboards
If you mean porn and /vp/ is any example, I wouldn't worry much at all. If you post so much as a poorly drawn boob in a dA thread, it gets deleted.

>>154730
You actually can't, moot fires your ass if you're doing vigilante shit.

Also, stop posting pony shit. I'm a ponyfag and I still find it really fucking annoying when people post it outside of /mlp/ just to be a pest and derail threads

I personally think the mods need to do a better job when it comes to taking care of an entire thread.

Tired of seeing some faggot OP post cartoon porn and 20-30 posts are
>wow OP she's so hawt epic win!
>amazing pic OP, jelly lulz!

This shit happened on /q/ the other night.

OP needs a nice long ban and the faggots supporting OP need a nice long ban

>>154745
...
4. PLEASE make a sticky or make a permanent message visible to users of /b/ about them having to follow the (few) rules that apply to the place and ban rule-breakers there on sight - especially the "doxers"/"raiders", which seem to be going almost "pro" recently: the fact that most users there think the mods/janitors don't give a shit unless it's CP is making a lot of "potential reporters" give up on doing so and making many others think they can do literally anything - including a LOT of law-breaking fucked up shit, as long as it isn't CP. It's too much to mention it all here, but suffice to say that it involves credit card fraud, slander (e.g. mass false accusations of paedohilia, trying to make someone lose the custody of her/his children under accusations of molestation), calling the Police repeatedly against someone with false accusations of spousal abuse, sexual abuse, drug trafficking, trying to get people framed to get murdered, getting people fired, lowering their financial credit through fraudulent means, death threats and calls for threats, *ACTUAL* harassment and calls for it, stalking or calls for it, etc. There's even more, but it's too much shit to explain and it would take an even bigger "wall of text" to list it all. And it's happening daily, many times per day. Anyway, in light of those,
...

moot, move /q/ to the left a bit so it blends in better with the other boards and dyslexic retards stop mistaking it for /b/.

I think we need to address ban evading too, because that's why a lot of trolls come back.

>>154763
...
5. Ban "doxers" and "raiders" on sight, if at least for 3 or 5 days on the first "offense", and more, when it comes to "repeat offenders". People are using specialized sites with HUNDREDS of "dox" coupled with sex/naked pics/vids of young women EACH to do their attacks, besides the "FB sluts" or "Failbook" pictures (naked/sex pictures with face together with FB profile pic with addresses, full names, school names, etc.) to do their shit. Also
6. Please implement a "zero-tolerance" policy when it comes personal/contact info on /b/: it's already against the rules that apply to the board and there are literally no legitimate reasons to do so there. Anything that requires sharing personal/contact info for "good reasons", can be done in other boards. And just a pseudonym with some naked pictures, for instance, is almost costing a woman the custody of her children down there. A full name with sex pictures cost some other woman her job and credit.
It's not "teenage trolls and pranks" anymore, Mootles: it's misogynist "witchhunts" and antiporn attacks of the worst kind - independently of the reason why the imbeciles are doing it, this is what they are, unfortunately.

Anyway, if you have the time, please take a look at this thread,
>>121300
There are some good suggestions there to make moderation in general more explicit and possibly more efficient.

Thanks anyhow, Mootles, and sorry for the "walls of text".

File: 1346712791359.jpg-(123 KB, 1920x902, 4chan structure.jpg)

I think we're missing a critical player in the structure of moderation.

Moot, you need to give some of your power toothers to share the burden, there's no way you can do everything yourself.

So I propose that you at least consider the idea of getting subadmins. They will be levied from your most trusted moderators and will be in charge of managing the other mods: training, recruitment, and moderation. They will not have access to the sites code of course but will instead allow for more flexibility.

>>154757
Bans are useless, everyone is evading.

>>154769
Sadly the best way to realistically deal with that is to have enough staff to constantly ban/delete so that the ban-evaders eventually give up and decide it's not worth the effort.

>>154750
It varies tremendously from board to board. Some boards such as /k/ are notoriously over-moderated while others such as /x/ are drowning in a sea of shit.

>>154778
>>154769
Fucking. This. It takes nearly nothing at all to ban evade, and people just walk out and walk back into the place while being highly obvious about who they are.

>>154783
No. Make bans shorter for stupid things. Like 30min bans or something. This way they'd have to think about if they want to move their lazy ass out of the chair to change the router ip/reset modems OR accept it and stop posting for 30 minutes or so. Currently most simply change IP because the bans are too long imo.

File: 1346712985285.gif-(146 KB, 720x480, q is b.gif)

>>154767

While we're on the subject of bans...

What's the point of ban appeals? Seems like a placebo since most mods deny them all. It seems like a broken system.

>>154789
Solution: Ban entire ISPs. Sure, half the world will be unable to post, but at least there will be no more trolls!

>>154793
>implying I have to leave my chair to reset my router

>>154778
>>154789
Set a cookie. I guarantee it would trip up at least half the ban evaders until some /b/tard makes an "infographic" guide.

Failing that, set an evercookie:
http://samy.pl/evercookie/

Of course, moot and Mr VacBob are lazy, and this would take ten whole lines of code, so it will never happen.

>>154770
agreed.

Mods have only one job to do really.
Ban the shit out of doxers, raiders, and people who post CP.

Every other, I mean
every other action is a tinged with personal bias.

>>154777
I'm pretty sure they already exist in the form of "managers".

Good idea: standardized ban lengths
Eh idea: standarized ban reasons

Most of the rules-based bans I've been seeing, moot, are no more insightful than the ever-popular "inane." No, I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but this does allow for abusive mods to choose rarely-enforced rules to ban people for non-standard reasons, simply because those rules are violated as a matter of course. For example: we've had a ban on image macros outside /b/ since...well hell, since forever? This rule has never really been enforced, and most members do indeed use macros. It would be an excellent option for abusive moderators to choose when banning members and trying to look legit.

>>154799
>>154793
This won't do much, spammers and shitposters are all using VPNs

>>154806
>>154777
Speaking of managers, what exactly are they and what are their roles compared to moderators and admins?

Hopefully feel culture gets banned site-wide.

It's like plague plus besides, it belongs more on Krautchan than on 4chan.

>>154799
>Solution: Ban entire ISPs. Sure, half the world will be unable to post, but at least there will be no more trolls!

That's a terrible idea. Imagine all the innocent people banned.

>>154808
This. Even range bans are easily evaded.

So b&'s will now include some cut and paste rules text.

meanwhile scamspammers, code, refer and survey spammers, richfag and steam id harvesters, free ipad scamspam continue to operate with impunity.

lol

STANDARDIZING BAN LENGTHS IS A FARCE.

The technical capacity to give everyone the same ban for the same offense is simply not there. Some posters get assigned a new IP every day or so and aren't affected by bans for more than a short time. Other people are stuck with a fixed IP address that they share with every other faggot who goes to the same college. And this is before even considering ban evasion.

The ban system will never be good or fair because it is based on the inherently flawed premise that users = IP addresses. The right place to focus effort is not on bans but on the more efficient DELETION of posts. Let's figure out how to oversee janitors better so we can take more of them on without wrecking the site.

Some people will suggest evercookie bans, but that is malware, and I urge you not to inflict it on users.

How about, for starters, you take care of the rampant Michael Clarke Duncan threads on boards that they don't belong on?

>>154796
Unrelated, but I remember I posted in a camwhore thread on /b/ once. At the time, camwhore threads were considered cancer, but not necessarily against the rules A mod banned everyone in that thread (it was a 200+ post thread) just because he/she didn't like camwhore threads. I appealed that ban as was let back in. I don't know if it was because of the appeal or if that mod was called out for doing something douchey.

>>154823
Nope, I've seen a few use them and brag about it.

>>154835
why beeing a retard and paying for free services
and even moar why brag about it?
also vpn is easily banned

>>154835

ya the most prolific spammers are using spam funded vpn's and quick change private proxies.

Not sure why considering their threads 404 naturally without any server side mitigation.

>let's thank the moderators for their hard work

>known shitposting moderators
>camwhoring moderator
>moderator actively shitposts on /v/
>/mu/ isn't moderated at all
>/r9k/ is shit up by tripfags who are never punished
So on and so forth. I feel like the post was just one big joke.

>>154844
>>154850
The image is completely unnecessary, and to most, it invalidates your entire opinion. Lose it.

>By standardizing ban reasons and lengths and making sure they correspond to the posted rules, we hope to make life better for everyone on the site. Moderators can perform their tasks more efficiently, banned users will have more insight into why they were banned, and everyone will benefit from rule-infringing content and offenders being removed from the site more quickly.
Oh yeah, that'll totally work. Like others have said, the rules are too fucking vague for it to have any value without showing the post in question.

does this mean that polo faggot is finally fucking history? about fucking time.

yo imma just postin from the front page but let me tell you this is the best news I've heard in a long time

>>154510

ITT: moot ignores the thread on moderation that's been up for 2 1/2 weeks and has 500 replies, but responds to "pls ban ___" threads

>>118513

>>154859

There are open proxies and there are proxies being used by spammers that you will never pass through despite what you think.

Just because there are proxy lists out there that people use doesn't mean there are no private proxies.

No idea where you got that idea from.

>>154858
Moot said he's a known ban evader.

bring bax snax lol

amidoinitrite???

>>154870
Yeah it's pretty crystal clear the bad moderation will never end. 4chan's decline has been ongoing for a while now. It's really disappointing.

It also worries me just how many posters on /q/ want a very strict enforcement of the rules. Almost authoritarian. I understand that some boards have terrible problems with shitposting, but that is not universal. I don't want to see /b/ made subject to strict enforcement of global rules. I have honestly liked the way it has been since the introduction of captchas and I feel that rule enforcement there is perfect. The only other boards I browse regularly are this one and /k/ and have more than adequate enforcement. If anything too severe since people have been banned in /k/ over inane misinterpretations of American law or similar circumstances.

That being said I would very much like to browse /x/ again and it could certainly benefit from a janitor deleting with an iron fist.

>>154803
I kinda agree with this post.

Mods jobs: Ban proxy spammers/raiders/CP posters ++ Janitor's job

Janitors jobs: delete offtopic threads/blant unfruitful trolls/delete bad(flamewars(you're shit/no you are) thread.

Mods bans for non-janitor jobs = days-months-perma
Mod bans for janitor deleted threads = minutes to day, if multiple report per day, ban from board for day (most severe ban)

>>154928
oupsie, wrong tab

>Because we received over 9000 applications last time around
xDDDD

I'm really curious about something. moot says it is difficult to recruit from an anonymous userbase, but is it not feasible to recruit first, and then purge those who prove themselves incompetent and/or unsuitable later? Maybe they'd wreak some havoc in the beginning for a very short time, but they can be dismissed quickly. Instead of focusing so much on the application, the staff can focus on the results.

>>154884

lolwat

ok, if you say so

>>154850
Why do you feel the need to post ponies with every single post?

>>154933
I don't think he used it seriously, but it's still cringeworthy.

>>154945
Get out, and take your ponyshit with you.

>>154940

Part of the problem is most anons who would be actually good at the positions want NOTHING to do with it.

>>154949
Just ignore him, he's ban evading.

Would anyone be willing to apply to /q/ to delete the ponies and the feel threads?

>>154945
You really can't go wrong with Sennheiser headphones. Don't know anything about the other one though.

>>154959

GOD GO THE FUCK AWAY

NOBODY FUCKING LIKES YOU

GET OFF OF A LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION

YOU'RE A PILE OF SHIT

IT'S TIME TO GO BACK TO PONYCHAN

Y-OU-YOU SHLONGDONGLER

>>154952
Well, you can't really do much about participation bias. But consider those who do apply but aren't accepted because, for instance, their English is subpar, they don't know how to brownnose, or they are just socially unskilled. These people could very well make fine janitors, but they are not selected because of their application.
This is the internet. By being honey-tongued, trolls can easily get into the system. I don't like how the system works.

>>154949
Stop replying to him, he wants attention. Hide the post as soon as it appears and ignore what he says.

sage sage sage

>>154957
Seriously? Shit like this is why no one likes these ponyfuckers. I'd have no problem with ignoring them if they weren't obnoxious all the time.

>>154971
If they weren't obnoxious all the time you wouldn't even notice them.
The being obnoxious is what's drawing your attention.
Hence... if you stop... maybe... just maybe....

What about the avatarfag that posts in /co/ constantly? The one that doesn't use a trip, but avatars with the blue loli.

>>154966
>>154966

How about conscription based moderation and janitorial? You get drafted and serve for 6 month tours. It would be lolz anyway.

... Could we get back on topic instead of digressing onto MLP bullshit?

>>154973
>>154971
>>154967
You see this shit. It is just as fucking annoying and I'm willing to bet a least one of you is the horse fuckers sockpuppet.

>>154971

No, you don't understand. Ponyfucks are not the problem. They are a problem but not THE problem. The problem is faggots like you who don't ignore them. They avatar and troll for attention. Telling them what bad people they are is EXACTLY what they want. If you give a troll attention you are worse than the troll himself.

>>154972
Yea, those studio headphones look like shit. Don't bother with them.

>>154972
moar liek Rainbow CRASH, amirite?

>>154977
how about stop with the avatar faggotry in general

you have no good reason to be including pictures with every single post, and we just got a global rule that bans avatar/signature posts not a few weeks ago.

>>154675
>We need to have the option to see the post you were baned for.

That sounds good.

>>154979
Heh, at least you'd have to be 18+ in both regards.

>>154510
I predict you ate... CHICKEN AND RICE.

Anyways, I think this new system is fantastic.
However, can you and the mods still write a custom message if you do not want to write a prearranged one? Just for fun?

>>154984
They're the same type of people who think all tripfags are bad and trying to rationalize with them will solve nothing.

File: 1346715528624.png-(21 KB, 889x172, the real issue.png)

Now you all know where he's coming from.

Good grief, it's laughable how easy it is to derail threads these days. Trolls have it nice.

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:39
No.155011

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:39 No.155011

>>154527
Yeah, it'll go up some time in the afternoon and come down ~24 hours later.

>>154530
Subjective request for objective moderation?

>>154538
We received about 11,000 in 24 hours last time around, and I chose to be cute.

>>154552
You're right, but the templates I put in are a hundred times more lenient than what most of the mods were doing. Most bans are only 1-3 days, and local instead of global.

>>154558
Pretty much.

>>154560
Protip: We've always been able to delete/ban for any reason.

>>154569
Some will be, but I'm not sure how many.

>>154571
>4chan was supposed to be a place without "rules"
How long have you been using 4chan? Nothing could be further from the truth. 4chan has had rules since day one. Just because you don't bother to read and abide by them doesn't mean they aren't there.

>>154593
>pretending to be retarded
>pretending
nope.jpg

>>154598
>I feel like Janitorial duties will get boring really fast
It is basically the worst volunteer job on earth, which is why they deserve an immense amount of credit for doing it.

>>154600
The application has been the same since we started accepting them almost 5 years ago.

>>154657
The extension won't be an issue moving forward. Firefox/Chrome/etc will be supported.

>>154685
I like how nothing in the news post said anything about an "increase in moderation" and all it talked about was being more /consistent/. Reading comprehension is hard.

>>154723
We aren't changing the report system. If anything, I might remove "spam." A reported post is either against the rules, illegal, or it isn't. Janitors can see the image and comment of the reported post, and if it isn't obvious to them why it was reported, it probably shouldn't be reported to begin with.

>>154736
It was updated with the HTML5 refresh and won't be changing layout wise.

>>155011
Picked a good time to be back. We can focus on the topic again.

>Because we received over 9,000 applications
>over 9,000

lel XK so randum!

>>155011
Welcome back Moot, enjoyed your diner? What you eat?

>>155011
What's your opinion on optional ID's replacing tripcodes on some boards, like this>>151370

>>155011
You should be cute less often, there's a large gap between 9000 and 11000.

>>155011
Sorry you have to be subject to this (>>155017
) constant jackassery, moot.

Anyways. You've heard the idea of allowing users to see what post they were banned for, yes? What do you think of it?

Come on, guys. Is the "over 9000" thing really that big of a deal? It was fine back in the day.

>>155011
Is there a reason for /f/'s layout?

Have you considered creating 2 boards for western vs. japanese animations?

>>155011
moot do 'Desktop Threads' belong on /g/?

>>155017
>>>/mlp/ seriously read the damn global rules.

inb4 umad pony reaction images only proving my point that you can't contain yourself and follow rules.

>>154982

Its annoying you because its the truth. You're a faggot that is willingly giving attention to a troll and you cry like a baby when people call you out because you honestly believe that what you are doing is helping. Its not.

>>155011
Moot, I want to apply so bad as a janitor for /a/, and of course other boards if you so choose, but I can barely be 6 hours or so each day. Also, I only use the college's computers. Is that bad? Would you be unable to follow a janitor who uses multiple computers?

File: 1346715868778.jpg-(62 KB, 604x453, 1334345504107.jpg)

I don't see how standardization does anything except make it worse. Any mod that's actually doing a good job (which seems to be most of them except Inane and whoever's in charge of /k/) is now prevented from giving the exact reason for the ban, and the ones who act like faggots can just pick a reason at random.

And while we're at it, is there any reason at all to have the "macro image replies" part of rule 3? I've never seen anyone enforce or obey it.

>>154971
It's just easymode trolling. He probably doesn't even watch the show.

>>155026
/f/'s fine, shut up.

>>155011
Hey moot, we were talking about ban evading too, is there a way to mitigate that? As you can see, we got a ponyfag here who's ban evading.

>>155011
>We aren't changing the report system. If anything, I might remove "spam." A reported post is either against the rules, illegal, or it isn't. Janitors can see the image and comment of the reported post, and if it isn't obvious to them why it was reported, it probably shouldn't be reported to begin with.
How about making a system where you can report multiple posts in the same thread that only works if you pick the Spam option? Because most spamming tends to be done in a single thread and it tends to be en masse.

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:45
No.155041

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:45 No.155041

>>154769
There isn't a better solution than IP based bans. The real solution is having better janitor/mod coverage, and the community drowning out the shitposters with good content.

>>154777
We have "managers" who are basically super-moderators and can add janitors and a few other basic things. I don't have any interest in creating some sort of weird imageboard bureaucracy and it'll stay as is.

>>155020
We aren't going to add optional IDs.

>>155019
Sushi.

>>155021
Thanks for the valuable feedback!

>>155033
To clarify, mods can still input custom reasons and modify the templated reason, but are forced through the template selection flow before being able to do that.

>>155041
How was you're sushie moot?

>>155011
This may sound like a surprise but sometimes context is required to know why a post is reported, especially when it comes to shitposting.

Not like r9k will ever be moderated.

moot, is a janitor only allowed to delete posts that get reported or can they be more proactive about it and moderate by looking for rule-breaking content on their board?

>>155041
moot! please give us the users the drop list in the report tab.

Let's us and the mods specify the rules broken. Helps you out.

>>155041
I hope you're not just skipping all the posts from >>>154777 to >>155020.

>>155038
That make no sense, there some guy on here the other day that admitted that he spammed Neptunia threads on /v/, no we can't report them.

It's fucking bullshit

Every moderator is just going to select

>The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

And ban posts and posters they don't like.

>>155041
>To clarify, mods can still input custom reasons and modify the templated reason, but are forced through the template selection flow before being able to do that.
Perhaps set it up so that users can do the same? That way the mods and janitors can get some of that ~context~ that was previously mentioned.

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:48
No.155059

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:48 No.155059

>>155048
Janitors can delete any post on their assigned board -- the reports queue is supposed to help surface the bad posts that need attention though.

>>155046
I understand and agree. That may come later.

>>155049
No, it doesn't help us at all -- it only adds noise. Again, it's either a rule violation/illegal, /OR IT ISN'T/. If we can't see immediately why something would have been reported, it shouldn't have been reported.

>>155048
If a janitor was only allowed to delete reported posts, oh boy, I'd fear for the board.

>>155041
When are you going to get around to doing those new flags on /pol/?

>>155041
Oh. Well, never mind then.

>Janitor Applications
>September 9th

This will be the beginning of /v/'s clense.

All (okay most, jsut a very select few) non-vidya threads will fall in my wake.... By Next Year.

Anyways, i don't really care for Better Moderation because i don't act like a retard and get banned for retarded shit. I only get banned by auto-bans thinking I'm spamming.

File: 1346716140342.jpg-(55 KB, 399x388, sadfrog.jpg)

>>155034
Well, okay.

But I'm still curious.

>>155041

This is a /b/ issue but do the mods now ignore reports on scamspammers, code, refer and survey spammers, richfag and steam id harvesters, free ipad scamspam, cloud puzzle spam.facebook hacker tools malware payload links
and the over 9000 other spam variants. I report these threads whenever I see them and they all seem to 404 naturally.

moot, do you agree new janitors should be NEET? I assume most of them are all day and night on 4chan. It would help for them to contain off topic discussion.

I got banned on /tv/ once for "cp" when all I did was post a picture of the cast of the mickey mouse club in a "actors when they were young" thread. How is standardizing the bans going to stop that kind of shit from happening? Standardizing is fine and all but its like there is no body actually checking the contents of banned posts. If there are then thats what needs reworking because it obviously isn't working very well.

In these janitor requests, when you say you're looking for janitors for one or two boards, are you looking for people who are the most frequent on the various boards, or just someone with a bit of knowledge about what is or isn't on topic?

Also, unrelated, but are you gonna answer some of the other threads on /q/ tonight?

When we submit the times we are available, what time zone? Or is just putting it as GMT fine?

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:50
No.155073

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:50 No.155073

>>155055
What makes you think the old system was any different? Again, nothing about this is geared towards an "increase in moderation" -- just being more consistent about reasons and ban lengths. If anything, the lengths I put in the template are way more lenient than the ones moderators were choosing on their own.

Word on cosplaying threads on /a/?
Our mod/janitor deletes them but shitposters lately have been arguing that as long as cosplay is anime-related, it belongs on the board. But if that were fucking true, what's the point of the cosplaying board?

>>155059
How long will it take for you to hire janitors after people send in the applications?

>>155059
I sure hope so. It greatly irks me that r9k is plagued by known shitposters, especially a pair of tripfags who admit to derailing threads and do so successfully with no repercussions. Even making 400+ post AMA threads.

Of course I'm just a lowly poster and cannot do a thing about this but it still unsettles me that such petulant actions are allowed to procreate.

>>155041
I go to /soc/ on occasion like you to but for chubby threads. We've been having trouble with a few forever lurking sagers trolling anons and camwhores to the point where the camwhores don't come back. I notice that you see trolling camwhores as a problem, but we've been reporting like crazy to no avail. Wat do?

>>155066
This. All janitors should be NEETs who spend at least 6 hours a day on 4chan. This would ensure they actually understand their board and its needs.

>>155041
Well I don't see how it could backfire or anything.

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:51
No.155081

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:51 No.155081

>>155065
/b/ gets over half a million posts per day. Even with a hundred people, it would be hard to catch everything. Also you have absolutely no way of knowing if something 404ed due to being deleted or pruned naturally.

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:51
No.155085

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:51 No.155085

>>155075
I already said in the news post. Try reading it?

File: 1346716312769.gif-(348 KB, 320x240, throwingfood.gif)

Moot would you consider adding a banner with Suiseiseki in it? I feel like she's an integral part of 4Chan and deserves at least one banner.

Are incorrect greentexting, vapid memes, and general shitposting that aren't explicitly against the rules really allowed? Shit like that ruins boards, but you can't do much about it because it's technically okay.

>>155073
Could you at least stop autobans for illegal URL/banned words? 90% of the time you don't even know what you're banned for or that whatever word combo/url was banned. Just make it like the spam detection thing that doesn't let you post RightStuff links.

>>155059
moot what is the best way to let mods know a thread is getting shit up by individual posters? In the moment that is, not an email to you.

moot ## Admin
09/03/12(Mon)19:52
No.155091

moot ## Admin 09/03/12(Mon)19:52 No.155091

>>155077
/soc/ doesn't have a janitor. This will change after we do apps and add one. There isn't anybody around to enforce the rules/go through the queue.

>>155079
NEETS are emotional train wrecks. That's a terrible idea.

I'd really like to see bans include a copy of the post we're being banned for. It's difficult to know what the moderator took offense too, especially when you get a vague template ban.

>>155073
Yes, but while the request was for more informative ban reasons, I feel this is far, far too vague and is basically a scapegoat for banning willy nilly. After reading through the rest of the rules, they all are quite specific except this one.

And let's be honest, the quest for a high percentage of quality posting on here is never, ever going to complete.

>>155081
moot, do desktop threads belong on /g/? Everyone complains about them.