How would you like to improve the site?
Actual policy ideas that are not just
>make board
>remove board
>purge mods
It's hypothetical, none of this will ever happen of course.
Besides general transparency/accountability of the mods, I'd like to see some proper legislative work.
A seperate group of staffers updating the rules, no more of this inconsistent and liberal interpretation of static rules by the people who are enforcing them
https://www.4chan.org/feedback
I've messaged the mods several times about bugs, and even misspellings/grammar errors in the rules/FAQ and they got fixed within a day. Seriously, just fucking use the feedback form already. They DO read it. Whether or not they think your idea is worth listening to/implementing and how fast is another matter.
They wouldn't even bother having the feature if they didn't plan on using it. They'd just get rid of it and go back to the way it was before.
>>459580
4chan has too many users with too few staff members for any legislative due process to be effective or possible. If you want effective/possible legislative due process then we're gonna have to start taxing the citizens. Making 4chan passes mandatory sounds like a decent start on how to go about that.
>>459597
Well, sure, for small obviously fixable things I'll go do that.
But if I want to submit anything bigger worth listening to, I ought to gather some information and have an open discussion to improve such ideas.
>>459839
Right, I'll be sure to watch and contribute to threads about specific rules, boards, and issues.
I guess I meant to talk about more sweeping general structural changes here.
>>459822
And then once you're done gathering all of this intel, you'll construct your piece and it'll be ignored. Great day.
>How would you like to improve the site?
Replace the user base.
>>459896
Well, I was more saying that as a way to demonstrate how dumb the idea was, but I got 20 bucks in my pocket. Fuck it. I don't give a fuck. Bring it on.
>>459898
Captcha sucks anyway! Fuck it! FUCK IT!
I think that the /r9k/ algorithm needs work, but if people are willing to work on it, I think it's a great idea to use it on all boards. I sure would clean up alot of shitposting that happens on /a/, most of their shitty, unfunny memes are just lazy copypastas. If you can the the algorithm to recognize cheats like BLOXXX for what they are, then it could improve alot of boards.
Also make discussion of the live-action adaptations a banable offense on /co/, my gosh that board went to utter shit.
>>460018
Of course something invented by XKCD is utter shit.
Implement downvotes based on board speed. I'm serious.
If you receive X number of downvotes per Y period, with X being some portion of Z total posts in the past 24 hours on the board, then your post is removed automatically without mod intervention. Users get to police their own boards, and shitposters get their posts deleted. Multiple deleted posts (let's say 3 in a 24 hour period) gives you an automatic 72 hour ban.
>>460547
I'm honestly curious to see how that would turn out. Sure, there would be whining about "turning into Reddit," but once people got over it, I wonder if it could work.
>>460550
Whether or not it'd "work" isn't the issue. The feature does work. Whether or not it fits into the spirit of 4chan is another matter. Which it doesn't. Got an unpopular opinion? Deleted. Got a few buddies to gang up on X post with? Deleted. Yeah, the feature would theoretically work just fine, it'd just create a site that isn't really 4chan anymore because rather than everyone being able to have their say, with nobody except the mods being able to silence them, the entire site starts becoming a wasteland where any dissent just gets ganged up on and silenced.
And that's the very definition of a hugbox. Even sites people love to shit on for being hugboxes like Reddit don't outright delete the post when it's downvoted. And, honestly, we don't need hugboxes. If 4chan hurts your sensibilities then it's okay to find another site. The point of 4chan (and damn near every other anonymous imageboard/textboard/other forum) is to be able to discuss things anonymously and embrace that level of free speech where posts stand on their own merit and are judged as such. The system you're proposing promotes people to just gang up on anything that doesn't fit the status quo. How is that a good idea?
>>460547
I've thought about something like this before, I think it could work if only the votes were invisible to other users, and mentioning the votes was a banable offense. Not completely sure if it could work but I think it may be worth experimentation.
>>460598
>The system you're proposing promotes people to just gang up on anything that doesn't fit the status quo.
But that happens anyway, just in the form of shitposting. Then people who are new see that behavior and think it's okay to do that anywhere at anytime and now the whole community gets drowned out by shit. There's very little genuine discussion of topics that happens on this site anymore, it's just a pit of shitposting that no amount of moderation could possibly hope to keep up with. I would prefer at least experimenting with giving the users a tool to help them to at least lightly self-moderate.
>>460052
It wasn't invented for /r9k/, but rather for an IRC channel called #signal where it works great there.
Add a checklist to the reports page for which rule you're accusing them of breaking and a text box for typing in which numbers you're reporting so that you can report multiple posts together. It would be placebo but through a combination of banning people for reporting things for the wrong rule, and making it easier for mods to tell when you're trying to ban for Avatarfagging as opposed to other more immediately obvious bans. Would also make it easier on the report system so that you don't have to deal with flood reports whenever some idiot decides to dump a bunch of loli porn on a blue board because people won't pay attention to her.
>>460598
If you keep the threshold high enough, it might be more palatable. Consider this.
https://warosu.org/vr/reports/post-rate
/vr/ at its slowest probably gets 60 posts per hour, 1 post per minute. Now imagine a dedicated shitposter butts in. He starts spamming anime titties or whatever. If the threshold to delete is set at 1/5 the board's speed, that's 12 reports needed to delete the post. If you're getting 60 posts per hour, that must be a significant portion of the posting population, plus lurkers. If 12 people report you for shitposting, is it really excessive to "automate" the deletion to users rather than wait for mod intervention that may never come?
Now let's take /tv/. Much faster board, stats say 24 posts per minute at this low point in the day (early morning U.S.). Let's push that to 30 for convenience. 30 posts per minute, 1800 posts per hour. At 1/5 the board's speed, this requires 360 reports to delete the post. Sounds like a lot, maybe it is. But you can adjust the threshold higher or lower, depending on what the board wants. Hiro likes voting; have them vote on it. How many reports should automatically delete a post? Different boards will say different things, some boards won't even want it implemented. But something like this is worth a try on traditional, high 4chan-culture boards like /lit/ or /jp/ or even /a/ or /sci/ where there's an insistence on keeping things relatively in line.
