I think one way to solve that problem is to show the user the post that they were banned for. I think some other chans do that.

marklar marklar

>>46751
>I think one way to solve that problem is to show the user the post that they were banned for. I think some other chans do that.
That's a good idea. The mods have a preview of reported posts, so it shouldn't be hard to duplicate it and include it in the ban message.

>>46751
That would be much better than what we have now.

I have been around for longer than I care to remember, pre-Cracky-chan and I have never been banned. Meanwhile, my younger brother (he's in his early 20s) got a permaban from /s/ for posting women a moderator didn't find attractive. This wasn't even a CHUBBY GIRLS sort of grey area or anything like that.

If a detailed reason cannot be provided for a ban, it's not worth a ban. Police your police, m00t.

A lot of the moderators seem like they're shitposters as well.

Some have the right idea, but not all of them act like moderators should. Mostly /a/ and /v/ where its' obvious.

File: 1344613875911.jpg-(33 KB, 304x302, jew hunter with pipe.jpg)

It occurs to me that the "Inane and irrelevant" copypasta is just a means for that moderator to quickly run through the ban queue. He only does it in the early evening, after work, so I think the intent is to make it appear as though he has put in a lot of work on the site, when in reality he's just crtl+ving his way into a illusion of usefulness.

This has obvious negative results, not the least of which a userbase that knows it has defacto mod powers-- all a few Anons have to do is report and complain, and nearly anything will be banned without too much close looking. I can't imagine how long the report queue because of that shit.

>>46806
That would make bans avoidable.

For example if im shitposter and I shit post in 3 threads and get banned I won't know what in particular I was banned for so I won't know how to work around it. If I was shown the post I can work around it making it harder to ban/notice me.

>>46860
Its obvious on /g/ too, where even moot himself is guilty of banning people with no reason at all.

>>46860
This, I never realized how bad the Moderation staff was until /q/

Making a /v/ culture GET thread on /g/ and promoting shitposting on /k/

It seems like the Mods care less about the boards than the users

Easy solution: Ban messages should include a copy of the offending post.

It's a good point.

A ban that's felt unjust incurs the user's enmity against the site. No compunction will be felt at the next opportunity to shitpost. Forced to ban evade once a poster will feel like an outlaw and begin to act like one. They're no longer beholden to the site or its rules.

Moderators and janitors need to act more responsibly. Arbitrarily deleting threads and banning users fans the flames, since ban evasion is easy and making more threads even easier. They need to guide the community rather than bruteforce it.

Didn't mootle say there are no board specific moderators? That seems silly, given knowledge of a board's community is necessary to properly moderate it.

>>46924
We WANT people to avoid posting stuff that gets them banned. That is the entire point of bans.

>>46924
>That would make bans avoidable.
For most people, that's not a bad thing, especially when you have a chance to appeal and you don't know what you actually did.

Also, some of the mods are crazy. I once got perma-banned on /co/ for Rule 34. but I pointed out that tons of Rule 34 is regularly posted on /co/ and managed to get it reduced. I know the mods' job is a thankless one, but sometimes they need to think a little before handing out disproportionate punishment.

File: 1344614741121.png-(92 KB, 819x437, random ban.png)

Completely agree. Picture related, I have no idea why I copped this and what I could do in the future to prevent it.

But at the same time, moderators are spread thin, and it's easier to slap a quick message in and continue moderating.

moot just needs to tell his irl mod friends to cut that shit out instead of letting them do whatever the fuck they want. That's how friends work.

>>47060
Boards really do need their own moderators.
/a/ felt the result of having mods who don't frequent a board they moderate earlier with the loli shitstorm
The same mod also banned some guy for selling a replica of accelerator's shirt, on the reason that he was "encouraging the spammer".

I wish i was making this shit up.

File: 1344614848181.jpg-(102 KB, 762x462, inane garbage 2.jpg)

Directly from the news post that moot as admonished us all to read:
>"The most pressing issue facing the community is a lack of consistent moderation and communication from myself and the team."

moot, I put it to you that pic related is the only communication some moderators ever do, and it's so inconsistently applied that it's less than meaningless-- and that's EXACTLY the way they want it.

Pics related. If you need more proof that the mod is just blasting through the report queue without giving any thought to what he's banning or why, I'm sure many more examples can be given.

I think a more frequent use of say 10/30 minute time-outs, along with showing the post for which the person is being banned for, would be very helpful.

So many times i've found myself banned just like in the OPs case.

>>47137
The problem with 10/30 minute time-outs is that a lot of reports aren't acted on until hours after the poster leaves.

>>47117
That was absolutely horrible. Fuck you for reminding me of that event.

>>47117
>Boards really do need their own moderators.
I agree, but there's something to be said about giving the mods the ability to cover for other boards when the dedicated mod might not be available.

>>47153
> a lot of reports aren't acted on until hours after the poster leaves

Then this is a problem in itself.

More mods are needed, and less shitty janitors just deleting their pet hate threads.

>>47060
>>47060
>>47060
This, a thousand times this. How many times have we seen a poster go from posting occasional good content to NOT GIVING A FUCK ABOUT 4CHAN anymore, and doing everything in their ability to shitpost, troll, and fuck everything in sight, all because they were handed some outrageous, arbitrary ban with no communication of what they were banned for?

moot, you got rid of Sacks for this kind of thing. Guess what? You've got a new WT Snacks on your mod staff.

>>47137
This. Whatever happened to warnings?

>>47119
>>47094
>>46706
i think some mod was ban happy. i got banned like 2 weeks ago and i actually have no idea why. i would be willing to admit if i was being a shithead but i really didn't do anything when i got banned.
getting banned for "inane trolling garbage" is bullshit. it honestly seems like i got banned because the mod was butthurt.

>>47181
>This. Whatever happened to warnings?
Shit, I've never gotten warnings unless those "Flood detected" things count.

>>47137
I agree, more frequent use of shorter term bans would help sort some boards out. When i've been banned for like a month or something, I just do something else with my life and come back a month later, not even remembering what the hell the ban was for in the first place.

Also are bans meant to be for punishing bad behaviour, or for trying to alter peoples behaviour?

>>47236
I think it should be obvious that you can't alter someones behavior with a ban in any way that is positive for the site. I mean, if people thought otherwise, every board would be completely overrun with shitposters who have no respect for the site, the rules, or the mod staff anymore.

O SHI--

>>46706
I agree with OP. It's impossible to know what you did so you can improve.

You are aware the mods need to moderate a fucking whole website, and maybe don't have time to give you an elaborate explanation of your ban? >

>>47323
yeah i'm pretty sure with a few lines of code they wouldn't have to you fucking idiot

>>47036
>>46814
>>46806
>>46751

THIS.

This needs to be implemented.

I've only ever been affected by one ban, for some shit like 'posting irrelevant garbage', and I don't even know if it was one of my posts because I was on a university network with a shared IP.

Ban pages should definitely include the specific post the ban refers to, this is a good idea with no drawbacks, this needs to be implemented.

>>47137
Yeah, this sounds pretty logical. If I received a lengthy ban I'm very likely just to evade it, with no time to wallow on my mistakes at all. If the ban is less than a day I'd probably wait it out and think about what I did.

Maybe. I dunno.

>>47323
>don't have time
That only means one of two things:

1. More mods.
2. Mods who DO have the time.

It's not like they didn't know what they were signing up for when they took the position. Whining about your workload is a sorry excuse for doing shoddy work in the first place.

Yeah I agree, bans need more information. I once was banned because I didn't "take the hint" when a janitor deleted posts I'd made like 8 hours after they'd been posted. How was I supposed to get that hint? It's not like you're notified when shit is deleted. It's like the mods just assume you know what they're thinking or something.

Warnings should probably be employed more often and it would be nice to know what post(s) triggered a ban.

File: 1344616389747.jpg-(15 KB, 310x231, friday.jpg)

Prime suspect.

What's the name of that lame /v/ mod who advertised his BF3 server and made the constant offtopic stickies?

>>47369
No you wouldn't.

>>47340
now, now, there is no need to use fool language.

I've seen it posted here before, but I think that the old "User has been banned for this post" in bright red under the post was really useful.
It made lurking actually have a point because you would know what is and isn't OK to do on that board/the site in general through seeing what posts were banned.
I feel like there are people who come here and see shitposting, so they do it, too, without knowing that it's wrong, even if the people they saw shitposting were all banned they still influence new people if no notice is given that what was posted isn't the norm.

>>47406
Relevance?

>>47408
Well, no, I would. Because getting up and fiddling with my modem isn't worth the trouble if the ban is so short. What I was uncertain with is if this makes it a more effective punishment or not. Or whether other people would do the same as myself.

>>47380
I'm just saying that they're just humans, and may not have the time to give you an explained elaboration of your ban. But yeah, we need more mods.

>>47430
It also derailed a lot of threads it happened in.

I prefer silent bans for this reason.

>>47112
>moot..irl mod friends

If this is true, than the current state of moderation on 4chan is simply the obvious and predictable result of using the good-old-boy system.

>>47431
He's a shitty mod?

Bans are only really effective if you're stuck in a place where you can't change the IP address. Otherwise you can just avoid them and not learn anything about why you were banned.

>>47445
No. Mods are janitors that did a good job for around three years. Moot said he has met some of them, but they weren't made mods because they were his buddies, they were made mods because they were doing a good job.

File: 1344616788053.png-(92 KB, 271x300, Nope.png)

About a week ago, I got banned from all boards for 'replying to NSFW shitposting'. I wasn't banned for shitposting, or for NSFW (both perfectly valid reasons to ban), I was banned because apparently, I REPLIED to it. It would be nice if they at least told you which BOARD it was, because I seriously don't remember replying to any NSFW threads.

>>47445
>than
*then.

Actually, it'd be nice if like, a ban would show the post you were banned for and then quote whatever rule you were violating + the already existing short moderator comment. So it'd be like:

You have been banned for the following post:
>herp derp bad post here

For violating Global Rule #7:
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

Moderator comment: You are terrible, stop posting.

Or something like that. The first two items could be more or less automated (rule thing could be a dropdown or whatever).

I once got banned for replying to a shitposting ban avoiding retard.

I had no idea of who was the retard in question, nor that he avoided his ban until he came back and posted his permaban...

So, yes, copying the post that got you banned would be fucking nice.

File: 1344616966403.png-(22 KB, 935x729, v mods.png)

>>47446
Oh, right. He's not the only one that would make half assed bans though.

>>47497
It'd be nice.

Not all bans are for breaking written rules, though.

File: 1344617097282.png-(161 KB, 1335x267, ontopic ban.png)

Here's an example of the kind of thing /k/ has been putting up with for months and months now. A public announcement of a ban for an on-topic post.

What does he think this communicates to the userbase?
Or does he really even care.

>>47504
Why does the image focus on the word "fun"? I'd be more worried about the fact that he said "Some people have fun shitposting" as if that's a valid reason not to punish them.

>>47516

That's true. There could be an "other" option too or just like a "moderator's discretion" type message preferably with a more informative mod comment with those.

>>47406

How about who's that AWESOME /v/ mod who put up the "Well-coordinated and heavily practiced Reddit team beaten by a rag-tag group of /v/irgins run by a furry and a BR with 140 ping" with Galo Sengen?
Now that guy's cool.
Why don't we make this a thread to celebrate all the great things mods have done?

>>47117
Oh yeah, that was some shit. I still think janitors are a close second.

>>47530
I don't know, I didn't create the screen cap. I only focused on the shitposting sentence too.

>>47545
That was moot, I think. He's the only one who can put music on a whole board (mods can play songs on the first page only, moot's confirmed).

>>47530

On that note, the term shitposting really needs to be elaborated.

/v/ uses it any time somebody posts an opinion that is opposite to theirs, which, if anything, is shitposting in an of itself.

>Inane and irrelevant garbage
I got that shit once by posting psychology on /sci/.

>>47545
>Why don't we make this a thread to celebrate all the great things mods have done?

1. It would be a short thread.
2. It would only serve as a distraction from the large number of of problems the mods cause with the inconsistent and arbitrary bans that are causing the problems moot said was the most pressing problem with the site right now.

^ that's why.

>>47545
Mods = fags. Also, that sounds more like moot.

>>47529
>tripfag
Deserved it

>>47609
Nah, I've seen plenty of cool tripfags. That guy seemed to be in that category.

File: 1344617912886.jpg-(339 KB, 1000x665, mods are fagets.jpg)

>/v/ mods

File: 1344618087946.png-(443 KB, 1080x385, mods hate everyone.png)

mods sure are great

>>47704

that was actually moot

Just my quick 2 cents, but here's what I think the new ban form should look like:
>Reason for ban (must post a reason longer than 30 characters)
>post or posts that the Mod must cite as evidence (viewable on the ban page)
>ban active
>ban expiration
>IP
>name

I think having a bit more transparency on WHY you were banned would help. Getting auto-banned for posting certain words that have no relevance anymore (especially for new users) is just silly.

>>47775
moot is secretly the BF3 mod?

Friendly reminder that this thread is about being able to see which post you were banned for, not bitching about mods.

>>47796
Friendly reminder that this thread is about communicating with the mods. When mods do shit like that we have pretty much no one to talk to and stop it

>>47792

Yeah, the wordfilter auto-bans definitely need to give some sort of information about the words triggering the ban. Similarly, the you-can't-post-that-because-it-contains-disallowed-text message probably needs more information on it too.

But these are both automated processes not related to mod communication.

>>47808
Sorry. It's just frustrating to see the genuinely good idea of seeing the post you were banned for - with a simple script, most likely - lost among crys of "MODS = FAGS"

>>47847
Exactly. Trying to post with bullet points isn't allowed. I wonder why?

>>47848
Like the one Krautchan has? except there it only links to the post, so if it's deleted you can't see it

Maybe attach a copy of your post in the ban

>>47323
they can at least copy and fucking paste the fucking post that got you banned in the first place

>>47848
Yeah, but the reason mods are such faggots is because they out right refuse to communicate properly.

>>46751
>>46751
>>46751
Please moot, I would love to know why I was banned for once.

>>47794

No that's invisibro/gingermod. He has quite a flippant attitude to moderating. He frequently shitposts - see BF3 stickies, sticking an autoplay youtube on /fit/, using mod trip to derail threads, dishing out bans for "replying to shitposting" while allowing shitposting he enjoys to stay up for hours, linking to users posts on other boards in order to troll/discredit them in discussions.. The list goes on sadly.

I'm sure being a mod is a tough job and it must wear you down after sometime - people constantly bitching that you never do your job right, it's a thankless task. However, I do think that if you can't remain neutral and fair you should step down from the position

>>47792
I agree with this banform, but the main problem here would be that the workload would increase by a rather big margin. Imagine having to explain properly every ban you hand out, for the whole site, and showing them the post and the rule they're breaking.

This leads me to the main problem of the site: there are no board-specific moderators. Sure, a janitor can delete posts and "enforce" the rules mildly, but it isn't the same as a mod who can ban people, warn people, sticky threads that are relevant, and also can make the rest of the userbase feel like the board is being actually moderated (unlike the purely anonymous janitor).
In my case, if I spend 8 hours on 4chan, 6 of them will be spent on /a/, and the other 2 probably divided between /jp/ and /g/. I don't frequent much boards, and I suspect this is the case with a lot of users, including mods.
You simply can't be on the whole board at once and do good work on top of that, the site would need much more mods (or more active mods) and that may pose a problem if there's so much users with power.

So my suggestion is: make board-specific mods a thing, select them based on their knowledge on the board (for example, a mod for /a/ could be someone who has been coming to the board since 2005/6 and spends a lot of time on /a/- not just on 4chan, but on the anime board specifically). You could still have some global moderators that have power over the whole site, and they could back up a missing board mod or give guidelines as they should be the most experienced mods, but the overall workload would be greatly reduced and the moderation would be better distributed and organised.

>>47987
He also camwhores on /soc/ occasionally.

>>48046

I don't think including the offending post would be that much work. The mod's gotta look at that shit anyway, I'd assume, copying and pasting isn't that much extra work. And they type a reason anyway so why not expand on it just a little bit (it doesn't even have to be more than a sentence if that, just more informative).

I still think citing the rule that you've broken is a good idea where applicable.

>>48058

wow i knew he liked attention but that is fucking ridiculous lol

regardless, if he could actually be consistent with his moderating rather than "shitposting is anything i don't like and anything i post is 10/10 VIP quality" then I wouldn't have any issue because he's pretty active which is good

>>47987
Is it true that his furry girlfriend was modded?

>>47848
I'm forced to point out that if the mods were moderating properly in the first place, there would be no thread asking for a script to babbysit them. It's a two-part problem: One, the mods are... not very good. Two, the way bans are implemented is... not very good.

However, if we're to make the case that the moderators need moderating, we need a body of evidence to back that up. If you want to admonish Anon about anything here, admonish him to back up WHY the mod(s) are bad. How can moot correct the problem if he can't confirm that it actually exists.

tl;dr - screencaps of modfaggotry and idea to improve are both needed here.

>>48071
I agree with this. While I do agree it is more work for moot & co. to create a new ban creation/viewing code, it will help the user understand more easily what they did wrong, and perhaps how they can improve on their posting in the future.

Knowledge is power!

>>48096

Well, I think posting unhelpful ban messages to illustrate the point would be helpful for this topic, but just complaining about mods being shitty in general because they're fags/camwhoring on other boards is distracting from the main point of this thread.

Several people have already given specific examples of unintelligible bans.

>>48090

I don't know about that. There's all sorts of rumours that are propagated by shitposters and trolls

>>48090
moot said no staff have been female

>>47704
well announcing you're reporting someone is against the rules

>>48096
I think having mods cite the bannable posts would really help accountability. If you really WERE shitting up a board, your posts would show it, and you'd know it was your own fault.

If you feel like you were the subject of mod aggression or laziness, you can appeal your ban, and whoever sees the cited posts will be able to pass judgement, while at the same time being well-enough-informed of the situation.

>>48046
also this.

>>48046
One problem I foresee with this suggestion is that some boards get good moderation while others get none/poor moderation. I'd suggest that mods are assigned to patrol one board, but can still ban people on any board, and are still expected to respond to mass reporting.

Or, even better, let the janitors sort through user reports, and pass on bannable posts. The janitors could immediately delete the shitposts and the mods, when they have the time, could look at the saved flagged posts to decide if the poster needs a ban. This would also allow the mods more time to ban people properly (with a reason beyond LOL U B&) because they wouldn't need to get the ban out ASAP.

The better solution is to stop posting inane and irrelevant garbage, faggots.

>>48198

Yeah, though I'm not entirely sure how appeals work. If the same vindictive mod sees your appeal and denies it then what?

>>48208

Maybe janitors should have the ability to warn users (non-publically) too? So, like, if they're deleting a lot of shit from one IP, send a warning. It might help alleviate the workload on some of the mods assuming that ("honest") people would head janitor warnings. And then from there janitors could take abusive users to the mods to make a final ban decision if necessary.

ITT: Shitposters want the mods to reveal how they were caught so they don't make the same mistake next time and can shitpost for longer before getting banned

>>48280

Uh, if people don't make the same "mistake" again presumably they wouldn't be shitposting anymore.

NEW BAN FORM

>user's I.P.
Automated.
>duration of ban (date of when it started and when it ends)
Automated.
>copy of post that lead to ban
Could be automated. No increased workload for mods.
>rules broken
Dropdown menu or checkboxes with the global rules and rules for specific board. Plus, an option to choose "Mod's discretion".
>Mod's message
Not mandatory unless the reason for ban was "mod's discretion". A message from the mod explaining the reason for ban.

This would keep the workload about the same for mods (or even less since "mod's message" isn't mandatory when banning for breaking a rule).
It would also discourage bans for things like a mod's whim since they need to justify it their decision in the mod's message when the post doesn't break a specific rule and the post and reason for banning would be explicit either way.
It would keep things simple, it would be easier to appeal (and for the mods to judge) wrongful bans since we'd have the post and the rule it supposedly broke.

It's believe this is a better system all around than what we have now.

To add to this thread: When I am being banned for posting banned text, could you please point out what the banned text was? I got fucking banned for trying to make a post about Yugioh once, but I don't know exactly what happened because all I get is an automated sentence.

I got once banned for 3 days, reason: ":3"

Awful 3 days.

What if you get banned for reporting content that doesn't belong on the board?

e.g. >>>/sci/4928286 & >>>/sci/4915035

And as general criticism of /sci/'s mod, he's either going full nazi (while allowing certain shit like that up) or entirely gone. We need more janotirs there. I'm applying, but there's a snowball's chance in hell that I'm getting it. I'm just hoping that Automa Tommy doesn't get it. For non/sci regulars, he posts that everything that doesn't fit within his tiny little aspie definiton of 'hard science' should go to /x/. The mod supports him, even though he shitposts. I was banned for reporting him a couple of times.

>>48280
>ITT: Shitposters want the mods to reveal how they were caught
No, the mods are banning directly from the report queue. The probem is that ANYONE can sent a report for ANYTHING, and the mods are doing a very poor job of actually looking at what they're banning and a worse job of communicating what they're actually banning for.

Result: Huge report queue, more ban evasions, more shitposting, less respect for the moderator staff, shittier boards.

Banning itself is inane and irrelelvent. I can just reset my router and I'm unbanned.

>>48390
This.

This is what inane and irrelevant bans leads to.

>>48390
Not everyone has that ability, or common sense, though.

It seems like Janitors might benefit from a bit of extra power.

Maybe let them be able to ban posters, but set a limit for how long they can ban someone and how many a Janitor can ban in 24 hours.

It'd be a good way to gauge which Janitors should be allowed more power

>>48390
I have a static IP

>>48374
Apparently these threads do belong on the /sci/ board. If your main focus is on fighting things that only fit your subjective notion of "shitposting", then you most likely won't be a good janitor.

>>48417
I don't like the idea of a fresh batch of janitors soon with any power above minor deletions.

You need two things: Competent mods who actually delete posts that should be deleted, And ban people who deserve to be banned, not just ban people for frivolous reasons.

You also need a better banning system, it takes me a grand total of two minutes to change my IP.

>>48417

I think being able to warn users would be sufficient without giving the janitors more power than necessary.

>>47497
>>47537
I couldn't agree more.

>>48295
This is perfect.

>>47792
>>47847
On wordfilters: if you're using 4chan X, you don't see that page.

>>48295
The only part of this that would be worthwhile is the copy of the post you're being banned for. The rest of it the mods could just ignore the way they do already.

>>48295
Alright, everyone in this thread needs to email moot this exact text. Pastebin: http://pastebin.com/4kQf8wP9

>>48447
Those threads caused a lot of grief and shitposting to happen. This was known before posting the thread. The thread was beit from the start. /sci/ has a history of banning anime/cartoon images as OPs.

>>48645
The idea is that they could not simply ignore it since it would be mandatory to identify the rules that were broken by the post or give an explanation that then could be appealed. Granted, I don't know how appeals actually work and this doesn't stop a bad mod from moderating badly but it helps in identifying that behaviour and it can be a better ban system IMO.

There should be something signifying which mod is banning you. Not names, but something like mod A or 1.

>>48845

Yeah that's be good. And if your ban's denied it should say which mod denied it (again with just some generic number identifier or something).

>>48845
Why? It'd just create problems for that one. moot can probably see which one does bannings.

>>48871

Well, to have some check against abusive moderators. I'm not really sure what it would do negatively beyond the regular whining about moderators.

>>48813
That's true, and I do like the idea. I was just sayin'. You know. Like, "get rid of the shitty mods too".

>>48871
How would it cause problems for that one? One mod bans, another mod rejects the appeal. Having two different mods agree on the ban would help deter abuse of the ban system, which is really all anyone wants here.

So, to summarize the suggestions in this thread:

- A new, more informative ban form: >>48295
- Board specific moderators
- Possible expansion of janitor powers to include warnings or possibly some sort of temporary ban?
- Instituting a generic moderator identifier for bans and appeals (Mod#1, Mod#2, Mod#3 or something) to check against potential abuse.

Did I miss anything?

>>48916
>>48943
Actually, I don't know. I just think a moderator has a right to be Anonymous in his moderating as we do in our posting.

>>49003
Yes. Demod the problem children and give the people who are willing to put in the time and effort to moderate properly a chance. There's THOUSANDS of them, so there's no excuse for the mod staff being "stretched too thin" to moderate properly.

>>49035

Well I feel like using a generic identifier wouldn't expose the mod's identity, but just give some sort of accountability for actions.

>>49057
Alright, seems fair.

>touchy subject thread on /sci/
>devolves into racism and shit posting
>be one of 2 or 3 people still having a serious discussion
>get banned for racism and shit posting
>thread is not deleted
>obvious shit posting in thread is not deleted

Every fucking time.

Well, hopefully moot or a mod will see this thread, because I think we've got some really solid suggestions/discussion of the moderation issues in here and it'd be a shame for it to go overlooked.

>>49057
>You have been banned by this moderator ___ times so far.

I agree that an offending post should be provided for each ban, along with the name/handle of the mod.

>>49169

I guess I'm thinking more in terms of generally poor moderation choices rather than specific vendettas. Like say Mod#85 is repeatedly banning (different) people retarded reasons or mod#32 is always denying appeals from people he banned. That way we'd have some way to report to other mods or moot about specific mods abusing powers. There would be no need for those identifiers to show up in public moderator action or anything, just on ban/appeal screens so they can be accountable for their actions.

>>49154
Unfortunately, we'd need to keep this thread up for 8-10 more hours for this to happen.

>>49154
If a mod did, I doubt he'd pass the word on to moot. It's just more work for him.

>>49214

Maybe we should e-mail moot about the thread then.

>>49211
You think we have anywhere near 32 mods, let alone 85?

>>49057

Awful idea. Seriously fucking awful

If there is any form of identifier then it leads to shitstorms (see - invisibro, NSJ, that other guy, "female nazi mod from /soc/")

If you think a mod is handing out frivolous bans, then go into IRC, post about it here or e-mail moot. moot can identify mods, they can identify themselves if they wish but there's no need for anything else

If a mod is unwilling to have the reason for his ban subject to scrutiny, then he should either not have made the ban or not be a mod anymore. To have it otherwise is just to BEG for abuse of the ban system, and lead to the kinds of problems we have today.

>>49235

No, but it's not like the numbers would have to be sequential or anything like that. They could be totally random, just some kind of generic signifier.

>>49264

> i have no idea how moderation for a large website works

that's all i'm reading every time you post

>>49244

People will do that anyway though. And they're usually wrong when it comes to identifying mod actions anyway.

I don't think the identifiers thing is a terribly important issue though. The new ban form idea is more critical imo.

Showing what your post was is the most crucial, having drop down menus to show which particular rule you were breaking is a side-issue.

>>49244
The moderator ID would simply be a number, and only visible when that mod bans someone. There would be no identification outside of that. This would prevent the same mod from denying the appeal of a bogus ban, a common abuse of the ban system as-is.

Mods would have no less anonymity that you do right now.

I've gotten numerous bullshit bans throughout my time here, but the most bullshit one was one time when I was posting on /sci/ (I'd post the screenshot if I wasn't using the mobile site). I figured /sci/ was the best place for my thread, since I think /new/ & /r9k/ were down by then. I made a thread about the US education system (specifically No Child Left Behind), and how it was a shitty, illogical law that disadvantages poorer (predominantly minority) students, and reforms that'll make it beneficial to students and teachers. About 90% of the thread agreed with me, and the 10% that didn't, we debated civilly. No trolling whatsoever. All of a sudden, 4chanX says the thread 404'd. I refresh, and I have a 3 day ban for "shitty /new/-tier trolling". I figured /sci/ would be the best place to discuss something pertaining the education system, since /new/ hadn't been replaced with /pol/ yet, and they were full of retarded trolls anyway. Anyway, I was fucking mad.

>>49520
Yeah, whichever mod runs /sci/ definitely needs some "constructive criticism".

>>49520
>>49649
I think the problem is that "global mods" will always have their pet boards, with the result that you get some boards with GREAT moderation, some boards with NO moderation, and some boards with PET PERSONAL PROJECT moderation.

If you want to correct that situation, assign a moderator to each board (preferably someone who is trusted, has been on that board a long time, is a known contributor, and who understands the culture of the board), a janitor (or two) under that mod, and then a handful of global mods whom the board mods report to directly, and who can handle overflow tasks (reports, appeals, etc.) from all boards. The chain of command should go:

user--> janitor--> board mod--> global mod--> moot

This system would have a larger number of moderators with less power, but each with concentrated and well-defined task parameters. The result would be more transparency in moderator events, less (or no) abuse of mod privs, and better user-to-staff communication.

Having only a handfull of mods for a site this size is, quite frankly, batshit insane. No wonder the whole damn place is taken over with shitposters and trolls. What did you expect?

raising this point again
any sort of moderation will be arbitrary and non-transparent

anyone who suggests moderation is the solution needs to look at /int/ pre-flags to knowdd how fucking incompetent their asses are. i guess some fucking liberty-less yuropeens want their websites to be run like a police state. There's no point to continue this.

Boards are self-moderated.

>>50276
If only that were true.

I think with a large amount of new users and increased traffic, and what some call "normalfags", we see an increased need for some rules to be set in place.

If new users come to our boards and see people acting like idiots, then they're going to assume that's how everyone is supposed to act.

Reporting and saging are a good start, but either people don't know of them, or enough people do not use these systems.

Janitors and moderators fill in the gaps, and rightly so. They have the power to stop a shitposter in his tracks, but also have the burden of letting the user know WHY he was banned/warned. I think if we want to curb the rampant shitposting, we need a firm, but fair hand.

File: 1344628945353.jpg-(50 KB, 428x322, laughing tommies.jpg)

>>50276
BAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
DOOOOOHOHOHOHOHOHOOHOHOHOHOHOHOOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOOHOH
EEEEEEEEHEHHEHEHEHEHEEEHEEHEEEHEEHEEHEEE

O lawd, anon, that was HYSTERICAL!

>>50276
4chan users are too... uncivilized to self-moderate.

This needs to be seen. Bumping.

>>50155
>>50155
>>50155
>>50155
>>50155
>>50155
>>50155
this this a thousand times this

>>46706
>>46751
>>46847
>>50155
I agree with this thread - I was banned for... well... something... I still don't know what it was for.

> It's as though the moderator staff is VEHEMENTLY opposed to any actual communication between themselves and the userbase,

They are. There's a reason we say MODS=FAGS. Why even moot admits MODS=FAGS.

If I were a mod, I would free some of those IPs that were permabanned for spam/CP since like 2009. Srsly, banning long-dead spambots? If they come back (which they shouldn't b/c captchas), just ban them again

Back to page zero we go.

Mods or moot need to see this.

This should also apply to Janitors.

I'm a regular on /v/, and I see posts get deleted simply because a janitor doesn't like it. One person used a pony reaction image, his post got deleted. Entire fucking THREADS that are on-topic get deleted for little to no reason.

Mods should quote the exact post/thread you were banned for.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. Side note fuck /k/s mod.

>>54284

It would be kind of nice to know why a thread was deleted. Maybe the 404 page for deleted threads should have like "This thread was deleted for x reason" for an hour or so after deletion?

But that's probably a lot less feasible than the new ban form idea.

File: 1344649919065.png-(106 KB, 1454x658, Why am I banned..png)

Since I see quite a few people posting their bans, could a mod explain to me what this shit is for? I didn't even mention dubs on /v/. What the fuck?

>>54284
>posting a pony
>outside of /mlp/
There's your problem.

Anonymous ## Mod
08/10/12(Fri)22:47
No.56665

Anonymous ## Mod 08/10/12(Fri)22:47 No.56665

>>46751

I think this would be a good idea.

What we're generally seeing is a giant queue of reports. We go through the reports, decide if they're rule-breaking, then generally apply a custom templated ban.

My most used template is "off-topic posting". If we had to copy and paste everyone's post, it'd be very inefficient, but if the system automatically showed the user the post, I think it'd help people understand what they were banned for.

I'll mention this to moot.

Anonymous ## Mod
08/10/12(Fri)22:48
No.56682

Anonymous ## Mod 08/10/12(Fri)22:48 No.56682

>>54284

A lot of times when we ban users, we select to delete all of their posts as well, because if they were shitposting, there's a good chance that other posts they made were shitposting as well.

That could be why you'd see some posts disappear seemingly randomly.

>>56665
Can janitors suggest a ban reason when they recommend posts for banning? Assuming there is a fair number more janitors than mods, perhaps shifting some of the workload onto them would make it easier for you all.

Anonymous ## Mod
08/10/12(Fri)22:50
No.56694

Anonymous ## Mod 08/10/12(Fri)22:50 No.56694

>>56686

At the moment, no. That's something that has been in the works for a long time though.

An overhauled ban system where janitors can recommend templated bans and the mods can go through and click "accept, deny, accept" etc will help a lot. No timetable for when this will be rolled out though.

>>54284

Janitors aren't allowed to out themselves as janitors, and post deletions don't come with a reason like bans do.

>>56694
has moot ever considered because then the quality of the boards would improve greatly.

Anonymous ## Mod
08/10/12(Fri)22:53
No.56730

Anonymous ## Mod 08/10/12(Fri)22:53 No.56730

>>56714

Yes. It's just a big project to overhaul the ban system, but it will eventually happen.

File: 1344654414104.jpg-(16 KB, 410x308, Question.jpg)

>>46706
>we select to delete all of their posts as well
I guess that half-explains a question I've had for a while.

I was posting away much in the manner that the OP describes. I then closed my browser and played a video game for 30 mins. I came back to find I was banned for "replying to retarded shitposting" and that all "non-offending" posts had been deleted.

I was like, "What the hell? Why would you delete NON-offending posts?"

>>56859
Ah damn, quoted the wrong post.

I am off my game today...

>>56682

>>56730

I like hearing that it will happen. Hopefully sooner than later.

What is the mod response to these:
>>48295
>>49003
?

>>56730
Is it bad to derail off-topic threads?

I usually just post some futa in the thread then it dies, but some butthurt faget must have reported me, and the mod probably didn't look to see the context.

>>56922
Derailing off-topic/troll threads with legitimate discussion is a /tg/ pastime.

>>56730

That's great to hear.

I was wondering, do you think more information with reports could be helpful to the mods and janitors? Like, if we had a one-line optional reason box to fill out with a report, so the issue might be more immediately obvious to a janitor/mod.

It would be great to see the worst mod shitcanned and replaced.

I think there's a lot of us who know who that is.

>>56859
Same exact story here.
Been posting a whole bunch of things, no different than usual. All the sudden "shitposting" ban.
I'm complained like a little bitch here,
>>56247
>>56448
but in short, what I want to ask is,
what the hell happened yesterday? Did one mod just go nuts for few hours and 3 day ban every posts that got reported without even looking at the context of the post?
And then we were followed by moot's biggest freakout shitpost of the year. Come on man.

>>57025
The /sci/ one?

>>57195
Mods are global. If it's the same mod that haunts /k/, then yes. His moderating style is inane and irrelevant.

>>57230
>inane
That's /sci/'s mod's favorite word.

File: 1344659346982.jpg-(33 KB, 567x600, spetz.jpg)

Mods should be able to ban other mods.

Perma ban for spam (that I don't even remember doing) is pretty ridiculous.

Some bans really do get out of hand. I got banned for LURKING in a coupon thread. I hadn't even posted, but I was banned for "Responding to coupon fraud". Then I was banned another time for again LURKING in a shitpost thread. Mods really need to get their priorities straight.

>>57851
I have had similar. It seems to me like some mods get jaded and cynical and develop a 'fuck em all' attitude to what they're doing

>>57851
Well, I just lost a lot of respect for the whole system now.

>>57904
Does Moot even pay these mods? I think he needs to consider getting actual paid staff to moderate. Oh wait, no ads.

>>57925
My thoughts exactly when it happened.

>>57961
No, mods are all volunteers.

>>57961
I remember him saying at some point that all mods and janitors are volunteers.

>>57851
Can you confirm this happens, Mod, if you're still lurking the thread?

File: 1344661555467.png-(28 KB, 779x246, >mod.png)

To the mod(s) in this thread/on this board. Can we get some explanation as to why we were banned. The simple things like the one in this image are kinda of ridiculous. Comment probably spam is a joke of a reason to ban someone, especially on /sp/, where the entire board is off-topic or spam pretty much, unless it is a game thread.

more communication on what is considered spam/wordfilter would be appreciated.

File: 1344662558810.png-(482 KB, 783x700, 1342405826151.png)

On a side note why do most bans (at least from /v/) result in an all-boards ban? I don't think I've ever gotten a single ban there that didn't apply to every board. This doesn't happen as much with other boards, at least I think.

I think that there should be more public bans. It lets users know if someone has broken the rules.

>>56922

just because you're using it as a form of "self moderation" doesn't mean it isn't still shitposting.

The only true, good self moderation is report and ignore.

>>47530
I'm assuming that has something to do with the fact that the word fun is like a taboo word on some boards. I know that whenever /v/irgins use the word fun they always spoiler it.

>>58488

I feel there should be less, if anything.

It doesn't incite people to think "wow, that guy got banned, maybe I shouldn't spam inane garbage/be a faggot/whatever", it incites people to spam ">(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)" type responses and derail a thread even harder.

> report some guy posting his penis and a lol le invasion x d thread
> nothing happens
> complain on irc
> a mod comes around and gives me a three-month ban for posting a mildly off-topic joke thread
> the invasion bullshit (lol spam this guy's youtube xddd anonz r ljun) and penis pictures are still on the front page an hour later

What needs to be done is every ban needs to include the post(s) that lead to the banning, the rule(s) broken, and bans need to be toned down. More public moderstion instead of making posts disappear would also be good.

Instead of immediately handing out a week long global ban, the mods should have to start with a warning or two, then move up to a board specific ban from a few hours to a few days depending on the severity of the offense, with global bans reserved to major offenses like CP or widespread shitposting over several boards or otherwise chronic shitposting with no indication of letting up.

This way moderation would actually see, somewhat logical rather than the childish abuse of a power mad faggot like we have now, and the users could see for themselves what is and isn't acceptable. I'd also like janitors to get the ability to warn.

Also, as mentioned above, some sort of mod ID system to identify any power mad faggots would also be nice.

What happened to banning people in just one board? Everything's a site-wide ban these days.

>>58907
>childish abuse of a power mad faggot
A.K.A how /sci/ is moderated now.

I feel your pain, OP.
Once I was banned from 4chan for posting a math question on /sci/

well fuck! If you can't ask a fucking math question on /sci/ what is the fucking point in even having a board?

I wasn't aware that being smart also entailed being a smart-ass cockfuck, when someone asks for help, you'd figure someone with enough intelligence would be happy to answer, instead of swinging the banhammer just because "he can" and just because "he can be a dick however he wants because he's a fucking mod"

that shit is lame as fuck dude, its got to stop.

>>58996
maybe moot will come to his senses and find another mod for /sci/ that isn't such a fascist, non-smiling, hateful, pissy, misanthropic cockroach-cock-fuck.

Want to ban me mods? Fuck it do it, I speak the truth, I'm not the only motherfucker that thinks your mod at /sci/ is a fuck up.

Get another mod for /sci/ seriously.
Can't even have civil discussions there without some asshole fucking shit up.

>>59125
>>59185
lol you definitely are mad.
I agree with you though. Some of the bans are just ridiculous, especially considering their length at times.
If a mod wants to ban someone, but if that person isn't literally actively shitposting/dumping crazy shit, he really should just ban for like an hour as a warning and it will totally get the message across.
If the person does it again, then ban for like few days or a week.

Can someone just make another 4chan and burn this one to the ground

consider:
- boards are just a really really retarded form of post-tagging
- mods are ex-goons and assholes
- mods and janitors will only ever ask for more power
- this is going to end up looking like SA
- when people are afraid to post, they will only post boring safe shit
- were our rules as they are to be truly enforced, there is literally nothing you can get here that you wouldn't be able to get elsewhere
- both the mods and the userbase are in their late 20s, and are aging out of the not-sucking portion of life

can someone seriously not just shut 4chan the fuck down? we're trying to run a youtube class site with fark class staff and YTMND class ideas and it is just fucking WEARING.

4chan is not needed anymore but as long as it exists it's going to leave making anything better impossible.

4chan delenda est.

>>59185
Whoa man, I agrew with your underlying priciples, but tone it down. That ain't "constructive criticism".

For everybody angry at /sci/, may I present a thread to bump:
>>54161
>>54161

>>59244

man, getting more mods will not fucking fix anything.

moot is trying to run a Futaba clone like fucking 2ch, when both Futaba AND 2ch are out of date in western terms.

if it were just that, it wouldn't even matter, but the problem is that this site is one of those goods where they're juuuuuuuussst okay enough to occupy demand so that nothing truly good is worth producing. it's the fucking Wal*Mart of imageboards.

i'm not kidding. this site needs to die, and someone who isn't a 15-y/o goon or a guy who works for Sony needs to make a replacement.

>>56665
What if 4chan archives the post for the duration of the ban?

>>58441
im going to assume that breaking global rules results in a global ban and breaking board specific rules results in a ban from those specific boards

>>48295
>>49003
These two posts are important.

>>61956
Yeah, that about wraps it up. Although the Janitor thing could work if moot gave them the ability to mute for up to 12 hours and gave that power in 30min increments as janitors proved their competence.

>>61986
I forgot that I had the link to the thread lying around: https://archive.foolz.us/q/thread/26719/

>>59388
You really have no idea.

>>56665
>If we had to copy and paste everyone's post, it'd be very inefficient
As a temporary solution, you could write a userscript to do it for your own bans.

>>56682
>there's a good chance that other posts they made were shitposting as well.
Why guess? It's very easy to bring up a list of all a user's posts whenever you ban someone.

>>56682
>A lot of times when we ban users, we select to delete all of their posts as well, because if they were shitposting, there's a good chance that other posts they made were shitposting as well.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just delete from the first reported post? Some times they don't shitpost until they see something that sets them off.

But yeah, in certain circumstances, I can see where that makes sense (Accel/gore spam, people shitposting in Toonami threads, etc...).

>>62223
Mods are lazy and stupid for the most part. It's why /v/ was about everything but vidya for the longest time and why half the posts on /sp/ are about rap, TV, and feels, yet discussing weapons in /k/ and technology in /g/ gets you banned.

/int/ janitor is worst janitor.

Deletes posts from certain countries without hesitation. Deletes posts calling him out on his bullshit.
Deletes posts randomly, both within threads and entire threads.

>>61986
How about this?

prejanitor - can temporarily (time limited) hide posts until a janitor reviews them, and either deletes or restores them
janitor - can delete posts, and temporarily mute people until a mod reviews them, and either bans them or unmutes them.

The system keeps track of how many requests were approved/rejected, and this number can be used to efficiently make decisions about advancing/removing people.

Rather than fill out an application, people interested in becoming a janitor could be given an ID to use when they report posts, and the system would track how many of their reports were accepted/rejected. Then you could take a high-scoring group and advance them to the prejanitor stage. This would be much faster than reading and voting on bazillions of essays about 4chan.

>>62320
Your idea is stupid and you should feel stupid.

>>62320
>Rather than fill out an application, people interested in becoming a janitor could be given an ID to use when they report posts, and the system would track how many of their reports were accepted/rejected. Then you could take a high-scoring group and advance them to the prejanitor stage. This would be much faster than reading and voting on bazillions of essays about 4chan.
That's worse than the current way of getting janitors, because there's no way to tell if they're sane.

>>47529
He totally fucking deserved that. You fail to mention that he'd been shitposting for years and he was ban evading to post this.

There is ZERO valid excuse for not having enough staff to properly admin/moderate this site. Not when there's 9001 people clamoring to volunteer, people who can be given an explicit set of rules and limitations, when total transparency and accountability for every moderator/janitor action they take can easily be had, and when each volunteer is given immediate understanding that misuse or abuse of his privileges will result in immediate termination.

The mods just love their cushy spots of complete power here, and will actively seek to quash any threat to that. Meantime, the boards are all in fucking shambles. Cut your losses, moot. Relieve the worst of your mods, promote new ones, and yank everyone's leash in until things are in hand and moving in a direction you want.

Above all else something has to be done about the heavy handedness of the mods.

A week long global ban out of the blue with no explanation is fucking absurd.

It should start with a warning, move up to short board bans, then on to multi-day board bans, and then week+ board and possible global bans as appropriate.

All this week long global bullshit does is foster resentment, encourage ban evasion, and lead to retaliatory shitposting.

Chiming in: I've only been banned twice in 6 years on 4chan, but both times I had no idea why, and my appeals were rejected with no reason given.

>>62471
You must not post on /k/ very often.

>>62471
>Thinks the appeals are ever even read.
Dude, reading and thinking about appeals would SEVERLY cut into their vidyagaem time. Haven't you heard the old saw? "BAAAWW, DERES NAWT ENUFF TIEM TO MODERATE PROPERLY! DERES NOT ENUFF MODERATOR ETHIER! BAWWWWWWW!!!!!"

We've all been hearing it for years.

>>62399
Actually, Zed was well-known for posting A LOT of quality content on /k/. He was Second only to BOOF. But, you already know that.

Further, Zed never once evaded a ban. Everyone knows this, and you probably do too and are just being a faggot. He was unfairly banned for "ban evasion" by a mod who didn't know the difference between a real trip and a fake one, and was then continually banned for "ban evasion" even after he got the bans overturned multiple times.

The mod who was doing this was admonished by the other mod staff to stop doing it, several times, but that mod told the rest of the mod staff to go fuck themselves-- see, he was ego-bruised that Zed was actually a good content-creator, and that Zed didn't fall for his ploy to actually evade a ban. This same mod is the worst of the "inane and irrelvant" offenders.

tl;dr - yet another example of mod power abuse, and another good content contributor is gone

>>62491
They do read the appeals... sometimes. I got a perma-ban overturned once by being polite and contrite in my appeal.

I also pointed out there was worse Rule 34 being posted on /co/.

Although I do occasionally go on shitpost sprees,
I know that I have been banned a couple times on /ck/ for genuinely arguing with someone who I must assume is the mod or the mod is very sympathetic to his opinion.

One of them was about the potential cons of pesticide use. After a long pointless argument I posted citations to scientific papers and said "wow, you must be retarded" (or something like that) and got a ban.

It happens. Mods are just like everyone else on 4chan... well, worse, because they want to do that kind of thing on 4chan.

Roll a neckbeard, white knight, and 4CHAN IS SERIOUS GUYS and you get a mod.

File: 1344697814283.png-(255 KB, 1191x846, zed_.png)

>>62511
Zed might had have some quality content, but 9/10 times his threads or posts will be pure shit-posting.
>hurr durr 7.62x54r is "poorfag bait"
>can't afford .303 so rechambers his Lee-Enfield to 7.62x54r

Also, Hi Zed!

>>58441
I think I heard a mod or Moot say that they generally give an all board ban because if they didn't they would go to some other board and complain about the ban and/or shit post in another board.
Though, now I seem to remember him only talking about /b/......

>>62491
>>62517
A few years back the mods wouldn't even bother looking at the appeals.
I once got a week long ban, and the whole time they never bothered to even deny my repeal.

Though not too long after that one I got a 15 day ban repealed in under 15 minutes.

>>62621
If an on-topic thread about something /k/ related that the tripfag was warned for is the best you can come up with against him, I think you might be the real problem here.

And the mod. That thread looks completely on-topic to me, despite his strong opinions. Did anyone question the mod why exactly he was warned for this thread? Nothing there is making sense to me.

>>62666
What's that you say? Uneven and inconsistent moderation?

OMG STOP THE PRESSES!