/q/ - arisuchan meta

Toga a cute! CUTE!

>>2481

I did what I did,

1, because the situation wasn't improving.
2, I've warned I would take action if people didn't stay on the subject.

More than that there were already a post made about this thread from certain people concerned that it was derailing. I defended it and still does, but the heat as to go down first, which is why I've lock the thread for the time being.

Insulting and making post as >>2484 Is part of the reason why I've lock it.

>>2486
Woudent just banning the offenders solve the problem? Why is it necessary to lock the whole thread?

>>2487

I believe, and i could be wrong, that the thread is the reason people got unreasonable. Even after I've intervene they didn't care.

The reason for that seems to be that some people take certain thing to much personal and other just provoke for soykaf and giggles. adding on top of that I cannot identify anyone. So i can actually look at 10 people insulting each other or 2 persons. So I have to take measure so this derailing stop without censuring information for user but also making sure it doesn't happen again.

I though letting people cool down for a bit would help and time out two post that seems to be recurring a lot. Like a said this measure is probably for a week only, I know it's sucks I might unlock it sooner than later.

If you have recommendation I'm always open to improvement.

>>2489
You should've just deleted the racist posts that had nothing to do with the thread instead of posting a dumb warning and leaving them in place to stir more arguing.

>>2495

Spot the kike most certainly deserve to be deleted.

I don't see other low effort/"racist" post. You can report them it's much easier for me to see than reading through a whole conversation. I still prefer to do "dumb warning", prevent a lot of problems.

>>2496
Yes, I meant that one, but I also meant the ones about Jews and how they were plotting agaisnt White people.

It was a derailment of the thread and contributed nothing to the topic of Israel's cyberpunk atmosphere. If you wanted posts to stay on topic, those shouldn't have been allowed to stay.

By the way, high-effort racist posts are still racist posts.

>>2489
OP here.
First thanks for caring to hear back from the community you moderate.

My suggestion is… and this is based on the Assumption that you have the ability to ban ip addresses, that you only ban posters/ips that explicity break the rules. Since this is a small community, tactics like locking entire threads shoudent be necessary (and if the op itself is against the rules than delete the whole thread)

In a nut shell, ban Alice if and when she breaks the rules, but dont prevent discussion from taking place on a topic because it had a high potential to cause rule breaking. Just deal with infractions when they occur.

>By the way, high-effort racist posts are still racist posts.

I understand It might be infuriating to see these kind of post, but if someone post something you dime racist but doesn't attack anyone and simply stating is mind,
whether he/she consciously knew what he/she was saying was racist or not, I don't see myself being able to justify timing out someone like that.
This person didn't break any rule nor did he attack anyone. He can speak, He as a "right" to speak
doesn't mean as a Mod i'm agreeing with what was said, but he has freedom to speak within the limit the website agreed on.
Now if you want to talk about the limitation of our rules create an other thread about it and sees if the community and administration agree to expend on it.

>but I also meant the ones about Jews and how they were plotting against White people

I would need to re-read the thread once more. I acted on a rush to prevent further post, didn't fully understand everything that was in the thread my priority was
the childish mudslinging. Yet "Jews and how they were plotting against White People" Apart that this is as shallow as it can be, I failed to see racism in that. Just sound like
conspiracy theory more than anything.

What i can actively do for you right now is putting this thread in my top priority to prevent any further, re-reading it and reconsidering each post potentially worthy to be ban/time out.

>In a nut shell, ban Alice if and when she breaks the rules, but dont prevent discussion from taking place on a topic because it had a high potential to cause rule breaking. Just deal with infractions when they occur.

You are completely right and I should have done that from the get go. I have limited amount of time,
I wrongly believe that gaining some time to properly understand the full lengh of the thread would be
the best solution it wasn't obviously.

>>2501
Wow! After hearing back from you I'm very glad your a mod for this community. Good moderation is key, Thank you.

>>2502
Except this is bad modding. Banning only rule-breaking posts is what makes /g/ so garbage. It's full of derailments and low-effort posts because they can get away with it. There's no reason to bother doing otherwise.

A mod here should be a lot more selective what posts are allowed to stay. They shouldn't rely on rules alone, but on quality and contribution to the topic.

>>2503
You need to moderate based on rules to have consistant and fair moderation.

If you think the current rules aernt good enough then advocate for them to be improved, not for moderates to exercise their power beyond them.

>>2503
I expected a similar response to come.

As much as i would like to spend my entire day on the site I can't. You cannot simply read a post and qualify it to be a derailement, low-effort, insulting, racist post in and out of itself.
I need to take under account the context of everything, the thread, the responses, The culture of this image board etc, it's also different everywhere 4chan is different than 8chan is different than arisuchan, comparing them is like comparing oranges and apple both are fruit yet their different.

What you are suggesting, is for me to take action in an subjective way of qualifying post being "worthy" of a thread.
People would complain to the contrary that I'm to much restrictive and this will not help nurture the discussion that Arisuchan wish to spark from it's user base, yet your right that being to much "Open" will also bring a lot of problem.
The middle ground is what I'm searching for without censoring, restricting any thread and user. It's not an easy task. I could add it's an extremely exhausting way of moderating because like right now I have to take up to two hour to answer your simple yet deep question instead of reading other post.
Moderator aren't the people making the rules, we're the one who applying them. If you believe our rules need more specification, create another thread and asked our admin and community to expend our rules.
Or you can apply to becoming a mod too.

I am human which mean im not perfect, but if i were to moderate in a subjective manner anyone insulting me would be ban, people questioning my ways like right now, ban. Political post I would consider racist, stupid etc ban.
I don't want to be this kinda of mod because what i "Consider" isn't what everyone consider. Yet what i take out of your post is i could be more strict sometime, and i agree.

>>2504

I didn't even mention this. but yes pretty important point too.