We need a dialogue box to specify why a post is breaking the rules, sometimes is not completely obvious and the mods do nothing because they don't get it.
For example, this >>>/u/1941378 is a picture from an hetero scene, which is directly violating /u/ rules, I tried to report it, but it's not obvious from the pic that it is hetero, and the mods wouldn't know because why would the mod of /u/ play videogames?
That's why we need a dialogue box to explain the cause of the report, it's necessary in cases like this.
use 4chan feedback
People would misuse it to the extreme.
>>389655
How?
If it isn't immediately obvious why a post is breaking the rules, then it isn't worth a ban/deletion.
>>389709
if you seriously have to ask that question, you haven't been on 4chan long enough to suggest new features. (or even post at all)
>>389720
If people misused it they would be violating the rules and banned themselves.
>>390234
If you follow the /u/ link, it does.
But it died anyway
>>389717
I disagree. The example OP provided is basically perfect. I had no idea one of those two characters was actually a dude (fucking japan) so if I saw that report going through, I'd ignore it. If a little paragraph of text accompanying it was like, "The character on the left is a male character from the game [WhateverGame] so this violates rule 1 of /u/" or something like that, I'd be more likely to report it.
That being said, as >>389655 says, they could certainly just lie about whether or not it was ban worthy, and if I were a mod I'd probably be too lazy to do detective work to verify each post.
On the other hand, once that "Appeal Your Ban" day showed up and people got to type their own counterargument to the paragraph of text that got them banned, (which I'm sure would be visible to the banned user) if they defend their point well enough and provide evidence that their ban was unjust (unlikely I know) then that could get the original user that issued the report banned for violation of global rule 7.
All in all, I'm in favor of adding form to fill out for the report page. It would probably result in fewer overall reports and any report that has no text with it could probably be ignored.
>>390239
ur talking about cartoons and it's cartoons that look like girls so without knowing everything about every weeb game/show/whatever that exists there is no way to know.
OP expects mods to know everything and assumes the ppl who browse his (her? checking privs) board regularly do. it's unreasonable.
>>389655
>55
almost certainly. mods don't want to read ur blog post about why u don't like the person posting something.
>>390244
Try reading posts before you reply to them, dumb cunt.
>>390251
Don't reply to posts that are illegible.
>ur
>>390239
Agreed. Comments on reports only work insofar as the mods know the content. Obvious rule breaking doesn't need comments, and non-obvious rule breaking then becomes a matter of who realizes it's rulebreaking.I can't imagine the mods want to deal with scores of false reports falsely claiming a violation of rules because the reporter just disliked the post in question and wanted it gone.
>>389651
Also, /u/ is a really bad example to use for asking for changes to the moderation/report system. The jans and mods are typically very good about responding to reports in a timely manner and clearing up things that don't belong or are otherwise a problem. Even in cases like this. The other day I reported a cropped face in the reaction image thread, because I knew from seeing the full version of the picture previously that it was futa. There was no way to tell this from the cropped version, but I pointed it out via post and someone, jans or mods, went ahead and deleted it.
I think that's the easier solution, if a post is breaking rules in a subtle fashion like in these two cases, is to just make a post pointing out what is wrong with it and then report it. The jans/mod will see the post and see the reply and decide from there. No need for a potentially abusable addition to the report function.
>>390537
>Nobody has ever explained it despite the fact that pretty much every other site does it that way with zero problems.
"Every site" does not have the traffic and unruly userbase this place does.
>Obvious counterexample: hidden CP.
This isn't a counterexample. If CP is hidden behind a .gif/.webm or something you report it as illegal content and the mods/janitors will find out what's wrong with it.
The current system works just fine in that regard. Stuff gets reported and it either gets deleted if it breaks the rules or doesn't if it doesn't break them. The handful of niche cases where a comment box would possibly prove helpful are not worth the hassle implementing such a feature would no doubt bring.
>>390574
>If CP is hidden behind a .gif/.webm or something you report it as illegal content and the mods/janitors will
ban you for making an invalid report.
You're pretty retarded mate.
>the hassle implementing such a feature would no doubt bring.
Oh, yes, the imaginary abuse potential you still cannot explain.
>>390574
also
>behind a .gif/.webm
Newfag.
>>390781
You can't do hidden rars inside pngs anymore, so I don't know how else you'd hide CP.
>>391347
LSB steganography among other methods.
>>391386
Man, paedophiles are hardcore.
>>389651
bump
>>391441
Not really, most of this has been done more by people sharing books and music rather than CP, as far as I know. But pedophiles could do the same easily.
no one cares
>>389651
>yurifags getting triggered by one image
Serves you and your shit fetish right. Death to all yurifags.
>>393788
Go troll somewhere else.
>>389651
THIS. This would help shit a lot.
>>389709
>some retard gets mad at the evil SJW redditor mods that keep deleting his cuck porn threads on /v/
>finds a random post
>checks "illegal content" and puts "MODS=FAGS" or some other stupid "message" to the mods in the dialog box
>repeats until he gets fucked by the cooldown
>multiply this by even two or three butthurt faggots a day and the report queue will be unusable with a bunch of retards trying to "communicate" with the mods using the report system
It's a cool idea in theory, but in practice it will be a disaster.
>>394201
Explain how this would be worse than the current situation, where all of the above happens except for writing "MODS=FAGS" in the dialog box. As far as I can tell, it would be an improvement, because they could automatically discard those reports.
>in practice it will be a disaster.
It is in practice. It is not a disaster.
What about being able to specify which rule they're breaking, so that you can still elaborate, without having to surf through >he does it for free?
mods are so fucking new that they need spoonfeeding
but on the other hand, i don't report so idc much
>>394238
>Explain how this would be worse than the current situation
More retards would have reason to do it.
How would it even be better? The mods barely want to click "delete" on a cheap shitpost, what makes you think they'll want to read your C+ essay on why it breaks the rules?
>>394345
>More retards would have reason to do it.
Because they specifically want to send the mods a message instead of just fuck with them? They do that now by spamming the boards. Do you think that is better? If so, your priorities are fucked up.
>How would it even be better?
Read the thread. You are shielding the distribution of child pornography.
Oh man this would help clean the FUCK out of /vg/ so much.
Right now in the general I visit we have a dedicated group of shitposters spamming buzzwords and names from people who work in the company constantly. But reporting these people does nothing because the mods and janitors wont fucking try to see why its shitposting.
>not emailing [email protected]
>>394377
What general?
This would help fix shitposting in/cgl/ for sure. It's like the mods can't tell the difference between shitposting and on topic, or vendettas vs legit discussion
This is probably the best thing 4chan needs right now. At least the mods can know what the fuck the problem is
>>395721
That and
>switching to a working captcha and reducing how often it's required
>removing malware ads
>combining the boards into a single table so that spam can be fought effectively
>dropping arbitrary restrictions such as no APNG files, no sound WebMs, and no VP9
>allowing users to delete their posts
>>395741
You can delete posts, just not on certain boards. I don't' get it either
But really fixing the report feature would go such a long damn way. So now if we see a shitposter we can say "This poster is shitposting and derailing the thread into an argument about Reddit"
>>395745
Even on the boards where it's allowed, there are so many restrictions it's almost worthless. Wait 60 seconds but don't wait too long, and you only get 3 deletions a day.
>>395745
Because people abused the delete post and thread features
>>395741
We had to ban APNGs because people would take advantage of the way APNGs worked to put RARs full of child pornography inside of them. Sorry.
I have the utmost respect for you and agree with you about VP9.
>>395817
>We had to ban APNGs because people would take advantage of the way APNGs worked to put RARs full of child pornography inside of them. Sorry.
No, you can do that for any type of file.
>>395870
I didn't say you can't do that. I said you can't allow APNGs without also allowing hidden rars. Hidden rars are disallowed from JPGs too. The way APNGs work is by tacking the extra frames on to the bottom.
>>395881
>I said you can't allow APNGs without also allowing hidden rars
That's wrong, too.
>>395887
No it's not.
>>395888
It is wrong. First of all, 4chan's RAR blocking is done by scanning the file for the magic number that marks the start of the RAR file. This is completely independent of the file format.
APNGs work by putting the extra frames in custom data blocks. Now there's a relatively recent anti-sound-embedding algorithm that rejects files with too much data in unrecognized blocks, but that could easily be updated to account for APNGs. And the APNG block is years older than that, anyway.
Not that sounds files were a problem anyway; it just went against the philosophy of "4chan bandwidth must only be used for the prescribed purpose."
Of course there are still ways of hiding child pornography in a file that you can upload to 4chan, but appending a RAR isn't one of them, whether or not 4chan blocks APNG.
Somewhat related, what do you do when a good thread has been irreparably derailed into off-topic crap or shitposting? I don't want to waste my time reporting dozens of individual posts, but I'm worried that if I report the OP, the mods will just see a non-rulebreaking post and ban me for abuse.
>>389651
/u/ should be deleted entirely because you are a bunch of cancerous faggots and a fair few actual 3DPD rug munchers, which along with their cunt bearing ilk can fuck right off 4chan, period. However, in light of this suggestion, another thing which needs to be brought back, if not means to explain the reason for reporting something -which a lot of the time isn't clear unless you really know the board, which the newfag hotpocketeers do not- but being able to select the reason for reporting.
A simple Rule Violation or Illegal flag isn't enough. For starters, some of the rules are intentionally vague, so that doesn't really help. At the end of the day, the current situation relies entirely on the mod who eventually receives the notification and to decide if they want to leave the IRC circlejerk or if it is something which personally offends them. Very little of which is to do with maintaining the site.
For example in a thread a while back on /a/ I reported every instance of an anon shitposting and within an hour of making the initial report, I was banned for abusing the report function- or so they say. However the user was eventually banned, along with every single fucking post I reported. If that isn't a broken system I don't know what is.
>>390265
>Even in cases like this. The other day I reported a cropped face in the reaction image thread, because I knew from seeing the full version of the picture previously that it was futa. There was no way to tell this from the cropped version, but I pointed it out via post and someone, jans or mods, went ahead and deleted it.
Ergo it was entirely fucking unreasonable to delete that post. With your reasoning a cropped image of a porn scene, which is entirely safe for work, would be a bannable offence for posting porn on a blue board.
This is why you need to fuck off and be an easily triggered spastic elsewhere.
This is why people hate T/u/mblr.
>>395893
>it just went against the philosophy of "4chan bandwidth must only be used for the prescribed purpose."
Where did you pull that little number from? I've been here since mid 2004 and this is entirely new.
>>396214
Then you weren't paying attention. Sound threads were banned on the basis of wasting bandwidth.
https://desustorage.org/q/thread/380485/#380588
https://desustorage.org/q/thread/380485/#380613
>>396199
Report everything?
That's what I do.
>>396214
It's not a literal quote, if that's what you were asking. It was moot's policy, though. Probably the reason for banning APNG as well.
>unless everyone can see it, it's a waste of bandwidth
How can people possibly be against this? Oh thats right, Shitposters from other sites who don't want their playground boards changed
>>389651
>an hetero scene
>an hetero
>an
Idiot detected. Argument discarded.
The answers to all questions in the thread....
>why aren't the report boxes made for practicality
>why are post deletions and op bumping so inconsistent and nonsensical
>why don't the mods actually know anything about the boards they moderate
The answer is because all this stuff, including the mod selection, was set up by moot, who was a total fuck-up and has hated this website for years.
>>396234
>Sound threads were banned on the basis of wasting bandwidth.
Stop being so fucking naive. No, that wasn't the reason.
If Hiro told you that the earth was flat, would you believe him?
>>396244
>unless everyone can see it, it's a waste of bandwidth
Which is a bullshit excuse for shitty administration. There are thousands of posters who are unable to view webm content, despite them being enabled across boards.
>>396257
Please don't tell me you pronounce the h
>>396281
What country are you from?
>>396267
And now we have the mods secretly trying to take control of the site from Hiro now. Its clear the mods hate him
>>396271
I think it's a shitty penny-grubbing way to run a site, but why do you think it wasn't their reason for doing it?
>>396287
Anyone with any sense hates him, he's using 4chan to infect people with malware for profit.
Whether the mods would be better is another question, but I doubt they could be worse.
>>396286
Mx
>>396315
In the English-speaking world, yes, we do pronounce the h in hetero.
>>396288
>I think it's a shitty penny-grubbing way to run a site
Bandwidth is cheap, retard. If they really cared about bandwidth having the widest reach, they wouldn't allow webm content to be posted, for starters. They also wouldn't keep an archive or logs.
>but why do you think it wasn't their reason for doing it?
Irrelevant. If you've been here long enough you've already heard every excuse under the sun come from the horses mouth, and heard it being contradicted later on because they can't keep track of the bullshit being announced by those with capcode posting abilities. That's one of the reasons why m00t kept his official interaction short and vague, because it's hard to keep track of bullshit and even harder when you make up bullshit that is wrapped up in concrete statements. He still fucked up on that front, but the sycophants from post-2007 /a/ will bend over backwards to defend that shit.
I think at some point moot decided that threads should be publicly accessible to everyone and even users who want to be able to partake in any given thread on a board shouldn't be forced to use a certain browser extension.
>>396317
I don't pronounce the H in hetero. I live in Prince Edward Isle Canada.
