So many people believe now this may be the best way to save 4chan: By allowing more self-moderation from users. But explain to everyone how this might work and what benefits we could get from it?
The users here are equally at fault for the way 4chan is declining, as are the mods. But if we can begin to self-moderate, things might get better
Because I have really been thinking things over as of late: This hate against the mods is going nowhere. Its gotten us nowhere. They hate us as much as we hate them, and look at where we are at now.
We need the user, the ones who love their board and are dedicated to it, to self moderate it. A few dozens users, but ones that care deeply about the board. Guaranteed you'd see a huge reduction in shitposting
>>376552
Please explain what you mean by "self moderate" as people use the term differently.
We already have self-moderation. It's called:
>HIDE
>FILTER
>REPORT
>IGNORE
Anything beyond that should be the responsibility of the janitors and moderators, the former of which is made up of volunteers from the community.
Giving just anyone the ability to hand out bans or delete a post goes against what 4chan is about. As much as I hate to see nigger dick threads on /pol/, I don't believe that I personally should be given the power to delete them. That's the job of janitors or moderators, not anyone outside of those two groups. Because if we did have some sort of system where unpopular posts would be deleted if enough people clicked a button, we'd become reddit, and lose all the free speech rights we prize here.
A better idea is more janitors and holding those janitors accountable, not just for when they fuck up but when they're doing a good job. Good janitors should be treasured and use their skills to train new janitors in their ways. All boards need more good janitors.
>>376566
All these Janitors seem to do bad jobs. Also the report feature is broken as fuck, and sage is no longer visible, which it needs to be again
>>376571
What's the difference between a good janitor, a bad janitor, and a janitor that does nothing? You don't notice a good janitor because he gets shit removed before anyone notices, a bad janitor removes anything he doesn't like and/or leaves up shit that should be deleted just because he likes it, and a janitor that does nothing is noticed only in the absence of deletions.
I've seen janitors come through and take out people starting shit arguments through a thread, but nobody says a word or notices that a massive derailment has been avoided.
I agree that there are many many bad janitors, but I think that's a training and motivation problem. Maybe have a janitor of the month system?
>>376575
Wouldn't be a bad idea. But really FIX THE DAMN REPORT SYSTEM
>>376571
Sage is not a downvote, It was made invisible because people misused it.
>>376552
>>376559
I'm very interested in this thread as I've been putting a lot of thought into these things lately.
I hope people can seriously start discussing possible options for it.
It's not just about getting what we want, I really think something like this has the potential to help people relax a bit and would make more threads enjoyable.
>>376566
This works as long as you're in the majority right? Which is a fine short term solution.
The problem is, when you're not saying anything and the only people giving their opinion is a vocal minority then new users will adopt the views of the minority, they won't learn shit from you.
To say ignoring is the ultimate solution to everything is to accept that the community can change into literally anything outside your control and you're ok with that.
Maybe you are ok with that. I'm still not sure if I could personally be ok with that to be honest.
>>376579
>This works as long as you're in the majority right? Which is a fine short term solution.
No it fucking doesn't. Just because people disagree with a post doesn't mean that post doesn't have the right to exist. Unpopular opinions are the opinions which need protecting, not the ones with majority approval.
And in reverse, let's say there's a porn thread. Who doesn't like porn on 4chan, right? But it deserves to be deleted according to the rules about blue boards. So why should the majority win in that case?
I'm with >>376577
Fix the report system before you have to do something as stupid as make 4chan a popularity contest.
>>376582
That report system is a mess, its no wonder shitposting is still rampant.
>>376578
It was misused mainly by the big boards who also are mostly newfags and shitposters. A lot of the other boards didn't misuse it and used it for its intended purpose and expanded on that intended purpose to make it useful. Such as, if you see someone else sage, you politely sage if you respond to them
It should be added back, but to prevent the downvote shit, don't add it on things like /v/, /pol/ /b/ and the like
>>376588
So then how do you stop the shitty threads on /v/? Because let me tell you /v/ and /tv/ NEED sage and a good report system
>>376590
Sage still works you fucking moron
If you want to fix that shit, if the thread is ensured to not be deleted by the mods and to stay up for a few hours, fucking sage shitpost the thread to bump limit and replace it with a good one
>>376582
>Just because people disagree with a post doesn't mean that post doesn't have the right to exist.
Of course it does, but what does that have to do with anything?
It's not about minority opinions getting exposure or not. They do, and they absolutely should.
The problem is if you never say anything at all every time someone pups up and says "this thing everyone hates is great!" then you tell me how new users aren't going to get the impression that everyone on 4chan actually likes it.
Let me put it another way, your understand of the 4chan userbase right now is entirely based on the posts you've read from people who weren't ignoring things.
By telling everyone to start ignoring everything they disagree with you're robbing new users of the opportunity to get the same understand you have, and how can you then be surprised if tomorrow the site is full of cancer? (or more cancer I should say)
>>376594
I meant of course it doesn't. Minority opinions are welcome
>>376601
>clearly not since I've seen shitpostsing threads stay up for hours without falling off
What are you even pointing out in my post
If you are talking about sage, of course it doesn't do shit. The point of it is to not make your post bump the thread. People shitposting for (You)'s aren't going to use it
>>376605
So then what do you propose?
>>376566
I do exactly this every day on /g/, and you know what it accomplishes? Nothing. After wasting 15 minutes hiding and reporting a bunch of shitty, stale bait threads and blog posts, I'm left with maybe four or five threads with interesting topics that are dead or dying, eventually doomed to hit page 11 to make way for another facebook tard's spoonfeeding.
Some of the blame is certainly on the mods' part, but some of it is also on /g/'s shitty, pleb userbase that won't stop instantly jumping at the chance to shill their favorite branded product to any impressionable redditor that comes lurking in from /b/.
The mods don't owe you shit, you need to accept some responsibility yourself and show them you're actually worth helping. Because with every one of you shitters that spins this stupid argument, it's usually because you're trying to protect your own shitposting from going on the chopping block.
>>376583
>It needs to be brought back and be used to not allow threads to bump if enough sage is used , like it was back then
That was not ever the function of sage. All it does is not bump the thread when you post.
