I think one of the problems with (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) is that when people see them they tend to freak out about it. A moderator could lock a thread that he bans in but that would mean that perfectly good threads could be locked because of a single ban.

>>77678
True, but a lot of boards have more problems with troll/shitpost OPs than with replies. In this case, heavy use of public bans helps.

>>77678
At first, I see this as being a problem.

But I do see it going away. Once the communities come to have a realization of what is a accepted and what isn't, people will curb themselves.

But I do want to say that this level of moderation, being so public and all, should only be used to remove off-topic posts, or illegal things, or just generally disruptive/non-discussion producing posts (DOUBLES).

Things that are directly related to each other, like anime music in /a/ or a movie documentary of an musician in /mu/, are not off-topic or bad and shouldn't be removed.

Culture related things aren't bad either, such as Install Gentoo on /g/.

But threads such as "What anime do you like?" on /g/ are bad.

Basically, I think a more heavy-handed approach to moderation for things that don't belong in a particular board is a good route.

But I don't want to see a heavy handed approach on posts that are culture related/related to in essence because that would destroy the purity (or impurity) of the natural opinion, as that is the goal of 4chan.

>>77969
Well yeah, that's kinda what the image on top of /v/ is about. Primary is delightful, secondary is decent, but tertiary is generally bad.

Moderators modding heavily on any given board should be regular members of that board's community, have a good handle on what is and is not a troll baiting people and the ability to not easily be pissed off. They should also either not hold strong opinions on certain things being "NOT PART OF THIS BOARD" or able to separate "what I do not like but the community does" from "what should be deleted"

bringing back (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) I think would create a sense of intimidation and may even reduce the shitposts and rule breakers

>>78034
Yeah. Honestly, I think (USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) should make a comeback too.

>>78011
To be honest, I haven't seen this image until just a minute ago.

I haven't visited /v/ in a long time because of what it was becoming. I really am glad to see some of the progress there.

Maybe, instead of simple 404s, deleted threads would redirect to a page saying for what it was deleted (similar to the banned page) and, if the OP was banned, say it.

That would show that mods/janitors are working, avoid the MODS=GODS shitstorm and prevent the "why was x deleted?" threads.

>>78191
This, or at last say if OP deleted it

>>78191
Good idea, but it should be like the report post function. Illegal, rule violating (Perhaps the mods could specify what rule), or spam, or what >>78230 said.

Make it a static page, not one for each thread.

File: 1344810738447.jpg-(219 KB, 548x385, 1296683192051.jpg)

A couple of things I'd like to see, although I don't know how easy or hard this would be to code out, would be that where a user gets warned or banned and there's a notification of that, that other users can click on the banned note, and see what that person was banned FOR.
Also, this was brought up in another thread, if a thread gets 404'd, there should be a notification on how it got nuked. Be it general age/saging, mod nukage, or OP nukage.

But again, this is one of those things up to moot and the admin community if they want to bother doing something like this. I think at this point even if this does get put on the 'to do' table, that the plate is very very full right now, and it'd be a while before we see anything come of it.

I agree. We definitely need more heads on pikes. Autosage rather than deletions is the way to go.

>>78287
That wasn't another thread, that was:

>>78191
>>78230
>>78245

moot ## Admin
08/12/12(Sun)18:39
No.78323

moot ## Admin 08/12/12(Sun)18:39 No.78323

I agree moderation should be a bit more public and wrote about it in a news post a few years ago (using "USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)" more often than once in a blue moon).

We can't do Hellbans due to software limitations.

I'd thought about "probations" a long time ago, which would have been bans that allowed you to still browse, but this is now the default.

We're going to be overhauling the ban system to be more consistent with ban reasons/scope/punishment, but probably won't display the post itself.

>>78323
That's great. What do you think of >>78191
and >>78245?

>>78323
Will hourly bans ever be possible?

On the contrary, I believe bans are too visible. The main problem is people ban evading. The solution is to just not tell them they are banned. Let them go about their shitposting but now nobody but they can see their posts. It could be weeks possibly months or years before they realise and get back to ruining my 4chan experience.

>>78340
I think they are. I've heard of moot banning people for one second for fun.

>>78353
Moot said none of that, which is called hellbanning or shadowbanning.

>>78323
Have you ever been banned or probated on Something Awful, moot?

File: 1344811563407.png-(123 KB, 1003x677, bans.png)

>>78323
how about a ban board?

>>78375
/z/ bans still exist.

>>78323
Moot please put a sticky on /a/ that says

Subject: Please read the sticky before posting.
Comment: Before making a recommendation thread: LURK MOAR
No Naruto threads.

Thank you.

moot ## Admin
08/12/12(Sun)19:29
No.78715

moot ## Admin 08/12/12(Sun)19:29 No.78715

>>78361
I think I was banned once or twice. I haven't used SA actively in 6+ years and haven't logged in for at least 3+.

moot ## Admin
08/12/12(Sun)19:29
No.78721

moot ## Admin 08/12/12(Sun)19:29 No.78721

>>78380
He meant making them public. Not going to do that.

please respond moot
>>78191
>>78230

>>78359
Are they? I've always seen my bans expire at midnight regardless of what time I actually got banned.

>>78721
Oh I see.

Speaking of which, will you ever post the leaderboard again?

In a similar vein of using Cookies to ban, do you think taking a combination of user-agent, IP-address, etc. to hellbanning to be possible?

Or are you against the premise of hellbanning in general?

I agree with OP. It would be easier to tell what you can get banned for as well.

>>78947
http://samy.pl/evercookie/

>>79017
Interesting, thanks for posting this.