/q/ - arisuchan meta

Why are you making a new mod transparency thread when there is already an existing one with extensive criticisms that were left unaddressed, besides banning the OP?

Here's a transparency question: is criticizing the moderation a bannable offense? Here's another: why are posts being deleted across /q/ for criticizing moderation? Here's 10 more:
>>384
>I'd like a clarification of the rules, and a good explanation for both the user's ban, the deletions in that thread, the deletion of my criticism and the deletion of the thread where he gave you the archive.
>I'd like to know if there are other deletions that have taken place, and why.
>I'd like to know if there are certain politics that are derezzed. If gender neutral pronouns are enforced as a rule. If there is other newspeak and goodthink we should be wary to conform to.
>I'd like a discussion on what the moderation philosophy and goals are, an address to my criticism in the deleted post capped here >>382
>I'd like a discussion on the possibility of opening up more transparency and clarity.

>I'd like to not be derezzed for making these posts or this thread. I'd like to not ever fear being derezzed for these things. But maybe I will be, then, regardless of its length, this will be the last you will ever hear from me.

>>464
Many of your questions are not appropriate for this thread. Please use the other thread to discuss specific moderation actions. Those that are about general board rules and guidelines are answered below.

>Why are you making a new mod transparency thread when there is already an existing one with extensive criticisms that were left unaddressed, besides banning the OP?
This thread is for discussing general board rules and guidelines. That thread is for criticizing specific moderator actions.

>Here's a transparency question: is criticizing the moderation a bannable offense?
No, it is not.

>Here's another: why are posts being deleted across /q/ for criticizing moderation?
They are not being deleted for criticizing moderation.

>I'd like to know if there are other deletions that have taken place, and why.
Yes, of course there have been other deletions. They either violated the rules or the guidelines. We do not archive the contents of every deleted post or document the reason for every deletion. Administrators and moderators are expected to use their personal judgement. If a post is unambiguously in violation of the rules and guidelines, an individual moderator may delete it. If it is more ambiguous, a consensus is formed in a private forum. If it continues to be controversial, a public statement will be made by a moderator.

>I'd like to know if there are certain politics that are derezzed. If gender neutral pronouns are enforced as a rule. If there is other newspeak and goodthink we should be wary to conform to.
No, we do not police gender pronouns. Your political beliefs are irrelevant to the rules and guidelines.

>I'd like a discussion on what the moderation philosophy and goals are, an address to my criticism in the deleted post capped here >>382
The primary goal of the rules and guidelines is to provide a healthy forum for imaginative and intelligent discussion of topics of interest to those using the board.

>I'd like a discussion on the possibility of opening up more transparency and clarity.
That is the purpose of this thread.

>I'd like to not be derezzed for making these posts or this thread. I'd like to not ever fear being derezzed for these things. But maybe I will be, then, regardless of its length, this will be the last you will ever hear from me.
There is nothing to fear. If you would look at the bans page, you would see that only one person has been derezzed. The rumors of totalitarianism have been mildly exaggerated.

https://lainchan.jp/bans.php

>>471
I'm not sure what the point of the other thread is when the only mod post is snidely dismissing every criticism with the point that only one person was actively derezzed - and then the OP getting derezzed.

>No, it is not.
Then why was I derezzed?

>They are not being deleted for criticizing moderation.
Then why are they being deleted?

> If it continues to be controversial, a public statement will be made by a moderator.
I've been requesting a public statement on the many deletions surrounding the archive as well as every other deletion that repeatedly occurs on /q/. If it's not for criticizing mods, what is the reason that all negative posts regarding mods are removed but positive ones remain? Even if the bias is unintentional and excuse is that they should be retained in the mod thread, it didn't exist until I created it. Which I was derezzed for creating. Why was that again? And what do you hope to accomplish by just removing longform, constructive posts just because they're developed naturally in a discussion on a meta board outside their specific threads (e.g. all the discussion regarding seph's pronouns following her now-hidden ban)? Why not at least copy them and move them over, or make a warning statement so the content could stay up? Also, why was Seph's ban deleted and hidden? And once again, what transparency do you hope to actually provide from a board log that doesn't link to the posts being derezzed? It's useless. And why hide the moderator's performing actions too?

>That is the purpose of this thread.
Either make a deletion log (ideal middle ground would be implement mod hiding posts, they can still be viewed with a click but are distinctly shamed and out of sight) or stop deleting posts so liberally. And address your user's complaints, don't fucking delete them or accuse them of being someone's sockpuppet.

>>476
>I'm not sure what the point of the other thread is when the only mod post is snidely dismissing every criticism with the point that only one person was actively derezzed - and then the OP getting derezzed.
If you do not want to participate in that thread, that is your choice.

>Then why was I derezzed?
If you would like to appeal your ban, please use the other thread.

>I've been requesting a public statement on the many deletions surrounding the archive as well as every other deletion that repeatedly occurs on /q/.
This was answered in >>486.

>If it's not for criticizing mods, what is the reason that all negative posts regarding mods are removed but positive ones remain? Even if the bias is unintentional and excuse is that they should be retained in the mod thread, it didn't exist until I created it. Which I was derezzed for creating. Why was that again?
You are effectively admitting you are evading a ban. You also know that you were not derezzed for creating a new topic. There has been one and only one ban. The reason is specified on the ban page.

>And what do you hope to accomplish by just removing longform, constructive posts just because they're developed naturally in a discussion on a meta board outside their specific threads (e.g. all the discussion regarding seph's pronouns following her now-hidden ban)? Why not at least copy them and move them over, or make a warning statement so the content could stay up? Also, why was Seph's ban deleted and hidden? And once again, what transparency do you hope to actually provide from a board log that doesn't link to the posts being derezzed? It's useless. And why hide the moderator's performing actions too?
This is a valid criticism. Even if the posts were deleted to clean up after a thread derailment, they were in sufficient quantity that they should have been archived or moved. In the future we will try to move unrelated criticism into a new thread dedicated to the topic rather than deleting it.

>Either make a deletion log (ideal middle ground would be implement mod hiding posts, they can still be viewed with a click but are distinctly shamed and out of sight) or stop deleting posts so liberally.
The former suggestion will quickly become excessive as the board grows. The point about deleting posts so liberally has been taken.

>And address your user's complaints, don't fucking delete them or accuse them of being someone's sockpuppet.
Criticism will be moved as described above. There is no accusation of one being a sockpuppet. Moderators can see user IP addresses. If they see multiple posts from the same IP or range, revealing the sockpuppet is not unwarranted. That being said their criticisms should still be accepted as valid whether or not they are engaging in this behavior.

We do appreciate your participation in this thread. Constructive, longform criticism, as you say, isn't exactly fun. You do it for a reason. Thank you.

>>489
>If you do not want to participate in that thread, that is your choice.
I've contributed enough. I'm waiting for any of you to start.

>If you would like to appeal your ban, please use the other thread.
I have, and been ignored.

>You are effectively admitting you are evading a ban. You also know that you were not derezzed for creating a new topic. There has been one and only one ban. The reason is specified on the ban page.
My very first ban was for ban evasion. I am evading that ban now, yes, but the initial ban for ban evasion is impossible, when I'd never been derezzed. Your mods seem to have mistaken me for that catchan dev, despite it being pretty obvious I'm not, the guy barely spoke english. They're reasoning being that I criticized his ban, so I must be him.

>In the future we will try to move unrelated criticism into a new thread dedicated to the topic rather than deleting it.
Thank you. I think you should consider loosening your restrictions on what is considered relevant, especially in /q/, especially outside the 'official' threads. Respect that discussion happens organically on imageboards, trying to force it down only stops good discussion.

>There is no accusation of one being a sockpuppet. Moderators can see user IP addresses. If they see multiple posts from the same IP or range, revealing the sockpuppet is not unwarranted.
I was never acting as a sock puppet. I don't know if it's because I was using public wifi, but I made extremely obvious who I was throughout my posts in the thread and I'm sure my posts are easily identifiable across this board. Sockpuppet doesn't mean anyone moving through an IP range - it's fully reasonable for a poster to cycle between a VPN set for security reasons - it's faking actual conversation to manufacture a consensus which your mods accused me of, and I definitely did not do, as a way to dismiss ALL the criticism in the thread. And then derezzed me. The ironic thing is the one time I get derezzed is the one time they don't delete all the content, which I'm grateful for, at least for the user's sake.

>>496
>I think you should consider loosening your restrictions on what is considered relevant, especially in /q/, especially outside the 'official' threads. Respect that discussion happens organically on imageboards, trying to force it down only stops good discussion.
The staff have discussed this in private channels and have come to the same conclusion.

>Sockpuppet doesn't mean anyone moving through an IP range - it's fully reasonable for a poster to cycle between a VPN set for security reasons - it's faking actual conversation to manufacture a consensus which your mods accused me of, and I definitely did not do, as a way to dismiss ALL the criticism in the thread.
But that is precisely what happened. Nine of first ten posts by non-moderators were made by the same exact IP address. If digital sockpuppetry were an art, they get zero out of four stars. That being said we already agreed that the fact that criticism is coming from a sockpuppet does not make it invalid.

>>501
>But that is precisely what happened. Nine of first ten posts by non-moderators were made by the same exact IP address
What the fuck? That doesn't make it a sock puppet. I stated I was dumping my criticisms, because they all kept getting deleted so obviously I'd post a bunch in a row.

This was the first other poster who wasn't a mod or me:
>>390
You're lying through your teeth if you're trying to say that guy is me. I don't even agree with him. His point just feels like wordplay. You can see my reply is discussing very different issues.

>The staff have discussed this in private channels and have come to the same conclusion.
Good.

>>504
For clarification, I was referring the the following posts all made by the same derezzed user:

>>381
>>382
>>383
>>384
>>385
>>387
>>388
>>393
>>394
>>395
>>398
>>444
>>446
>>449
>>457

>>507
Yes, those are all me. None are putting any pretense of being separate people or replying to each other in some kind of fake conversation as I was accused for. They are just dumping the posts that have been deleted and then responses with other anons in the thread. Not a single one is replying to each other except the one acknowledging a word was word filtered. How are you possibly spinning this as sock pupating?

Yes, I was derezzed after making those posts, for "ban evasion" despite never being b& and that has still been unexplained while you're still repeating the nonsense accusation of sockpuppeting to undermine the perfectly valid criticisms in the thread.

>>508
I love how every other post in these /q/ threads is someone claiming they were derezzed, when in fact there is only one (1) ban. Check the ban log for yourself. You can't have it both ways. Either you are sockpuppeting and pretending to be different people or you are lying about being derezzed. Pick one.
https://lainchan.jp/bans.php

>>514
I have not pretended to be different people nor have I lied once about my ban. I was b& for "ban evasion," despite being not ever being b&, so I was forced to move onto between VPNs.

Why do you keep lying? Those posts are my only posts in that thread, as has already been confirmed, and they are very clearly not sockpuppeting.

You won't even make a statement regarding what possible ban I could've been evading in the first place. The only other poster that had been b& is the catchan guy, so what exactly could I have been evading? Why are you lying?

>>518
>I have not pretended to be different people nor have I lied once about my ban. I was b& for "ban evasion," despite being not ever being b&, so I was forced to move onto between VPNs.
If you were derezzed for "ban evasion" and you are not the catchan guy listed on the ban page (or have an uncannily similar IP address), it was probably done in error. Fucking relax.

so, all I wanna say is that [ λ / μ ] is not very convenient to type quickly. it's stylish/quirky maybe, but it's not worth the inconvenience and I'd love if it was some normal letter or combination of letters instead

>>521
This thread is for discussion of the rules and guidelines only. Please see >>>/dev/7 for feature requests and >>>/dev/38 for bug reports. Thank you.

>>521
I went ahead and made /lambda/ and /mu/ redirects for you.

>>520
Obviously it was a mistake. I don't care about the ban, the only reason I am clarifying their lies is because they are using the accusation to dismiss criticism. They tried to paint every negative piece of criticism from being the result of a single sock puppet conspiracy, so that it is all devalued. It's clearly untrue, especially now that they've posted my post history which has no evidence of sockpuppetting, yet they STILL refuse to admit it so they can continue avoiding addressing the complaints.

Whether or not it was out of malice or incompetence is not important, but that they're using it to avoid criticism and continue lying about it and not admitting their mistake is revealing. All I can say is at, the very least, they seemed to have stopped deleting critical posts once caps started being shared, and have selectively addressed SOME questions ITT.

>>526
100% agree. This makes me feel sad, since this was the place where admins were going to listen and improve the chan, I would love for that to happen but they don't seem competent.

>>526
>>528
Are you gonna bitch all day? or are you gonna help? There is nothing constructive in these posts.

>>529
Stop trying to fake a narrative. the only thing unconstructed about all the criticism being posted on /q/ is the mods' choice to approach them with obfuscation and evasion rather than engagement.

this thread (which exists only a direct result of our "bitching") is the single one that actually has an admin performing the latter, and its clearly been constructive for it. unfortunately, the rest of the team seems hellbent on the former.

>>501
>The staff have discussed this in private channels and have come to the same conclusion.
Why not have these discussions in public, on the board right here on /q/? What exactly does "transparency" mean to you?

>>529
>>520
>>514
Totally unrelated but is it a rule that mods/admins must only post on /q/ with their capcode on? If not, consider this a suggestion, and if it is approved, all posts made in /q/ without their capcode in the past should be identified. This is a thread on transparency right?

If it is' not approved: why not?

>>536
>Why not have these discussions in public, on the board right here on /q/? What exactly does "transparency" mean to you?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. The staff must have somewhere to discuss these matters. The community cannot be managed exclusively through the board itself. As for the comment you cited, we were simply stating that we had accepted the members feedback, discussed the matter privately, and came back to report our conclusion. I don't see how that could have been any more transparent.

>Totally unrelated but is it a rule that mods/admins must only post on /q/ with their capcode on? If not, consider this a suggestion, and if it is approved, all posts made in /q/ without their capcode in the past should be identified. This is a thread on transparency right?
There are no (existing) formal rules for staff activity in /q/, but there is a precedent for only using your name if your personal identity is relevant to the discussion at hand. This is an interesting suggestion though. I will definitely bring this up, ironically, in our private chat. I will report back!

>>514
>Either you are sockpuppeting and pretending to be different people
If the posts you posted are all the posts he posted, and you somehow came to the conclusion he was pretending to be different people, then there is something wrong with you. Isn't this an anonymous imageboard? As in, I don't have to fucking state in every post, that this, this and that is me. It was kind of obvious anyway.
>>520
>If you were derezzed for "ban evasion" and you are not the catchan guy listed on the ban page (or have an uncannily similar IP address), it was probably done in error. Fucking relax.
So you fucked up, didn't even check IP ranges and just derezzed him for good measure, then posted plenty of empty words over and over while screaming "relax"? What about "sorry"? Wasn't this chan supposed to be inclusive? Disgusting.
>>536
>Totally unrelated but is it a rule that mods/admins must only post on /q/ with their capcode on? If not, consider this a suggestion, and if it is approved, all posts made in /q/ without their capcode in the past should be identified.
Want to guess who will be the only ones "enforcing" these rules?

>>461
If there is no other feedback or criticism of the existing rules, we will begin assigning them numbers to be cited by future moderator actions.

>>538
>I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
It's quite clear, I'm suggesting transparency. I'm suggesting you make you hold your discussions on mod policy publicly, right here on /q/, whenever possible.
>The staff must have somewhere to discuss these matters.
You mean like this site?
>The community cannot be managed exclusively through the board itself.
That's fine, obviously there are a lot of moderation actions and discussion that are sensitive and need to be kept hidden but you should TRY to keep as much discussion possible held open to the community. Right now we have zero idea how you come to any of your conclusions, what any of the reasoning was - there is no transparency. You could at least report back with a log or summary of the discussion after the fact or something.
>we were simply stating that we had accepted the members feedback, discussed the matter privately, and came back to report our conclusion. I don't see how that could have been any more transparent.
How is that remotely transparent? Here is the issue:
>discussed the matter privately
Input -> black box -> output is the polar opposite of transparency. You seem to have no idea what the word means.

>>538
>There are no (existing) formal rules for staff activity in /q/, but there is a precedent for only using your name if your personal identity is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Oh and I didn't mean this as mods using their specific name cap code when posting with a capcode on, I meant that they turn on their capcode (specific or not) EVERY time they post on /q/. In other words, they are not allowed to make anonymous posts. I don't think it's that that important mods namefag but your team does seem to have a little habit of sockpuppeting. There should be no objection to this suggestion otherwise.

>You must argue in good faith.
>Don't waste everyone's time; anyone can play devil's advocate. You're not that clever.

>You may not personally attack or provoke users.
>Attack someone's argument, not their character.

>You must contribute meaningful discussion.
>Don't just +1 or -1 a post. This isn't Facebook so don't treat it like such.

>You may not discuss the policies of the board or the actions of its staff outside of /q/.
>This is never on-topic outside of /q/. The board exists for a reason.

>Please make intelligent posts.
>We don't censor ideas. We delete low-quality posts. Figure out how to better articulate yourself and try again.

>

is this some kind of joke? havent seen this level of pretentiousness in a while, i thought people like this had already grow up out of imageboards

>You must contribute meaningful discussion.
>Don't just +1 or -1 a post. This isn't Facebook so don't treat it like such.

I'm a little confused about this one, is this place chill enough to reply with a
>"thanks a lot that helped a bunch/that's what i was looking for!"
and nothing else
or do you want it to be a little more like stack-overflow where they want every post and comment to be relevant to anyone that reads it?

>>622
i think you are thinking of this the wrong way. The imageboard is administrated by the mods not by the community, if the community doesn't like it then someone else can make their own imageboard. The imageboard is not administrated by the community, there needs to be a hierarchy of power in order to have order.
What you want to have is some sort of system where every user has input into every single decision, and it should have some sort of weight. That's silly and such systems never get anything done. In general, too much communication is bad.

What is this chains official position on Pedophiles using the services to discuss their, predilections?

I'm not in favor of it at all, I just wanted to know. Thanks.

>>762
I don't think a statement is even necessary. Our position should be self-evident. Needless to say, don't worry, that will never be a problem here.