Thread 8081

On two separate issues, I feel like bothering the moderation team on IRC/Discord is far more trouble than the problem itself; and as a result deletion of the post/thread is the easier answer. Obviously that is not acceptable, and as such I would very much suggest that both the Moving of Threads and the Warn for Non-English be less reliant on @ing Mods directly.

For Moving Threads, it should be a "send move request" type automation where either it gets placed in a global mod queue for thread moves, or an IRC based system where it automatically @'s Mods. Obviously this would also contain the information for a suggested board to move it to as well. So to give an example, there's a /bant/ tier religion debate thread on /pol/; I simply click a little "M" button on the post and that brings me to a popup menu that asks where I want the thread sent to. For some boards, this might be a small list (so you can't send ANY thread to ANY board, just some boards). For /pol/ that list might be restricted to "/bant/, /his/, /x/, or /trash/".

For Warn for Non-English, this is a bit of a /pol/ specific request. It is a semi-frequent occurrence on /pol/ that users of a thread need to be publicly warned by a Mod for lapsing into German or other such languages; and I take issue with that approach for two reasons. One, it feels like a Mod is coming down from on high to say "STOP HAVING FUN"; and two, it doesn't feel rules based. Oh such, it is against the board's rules to post in Non-English, but which rule? The answer is "none of the numbered ones", it is just an unlisted rule. And while that in itself might not need to change it to feel like just a regular moment of individuals being warned for breaking rules rather than an extraordinary event that the whole thread is going to reply to.

I don't think either of these will expand Janitorial powers in a negative way, as the first is just making it easier to get moderator attention, while the second is merely adding a new warn request.

Being able to WR/BR for non-English without having to go tugging on a mod's shirt would be nice.

Permasage request would also be great. Or just give jannies the ability to permasage since we can already delete threads which is a more extreme action.

>>8081 (OP)
>>8083
I like the idea of both of these as potential features, though currently I don't feel they are high demand.

The vast majority of rulebreaking is/should be Banned, and much of the rest is either deleted (in cases of redundancy, or 'good faith' rulebreaking) or custom banned in unique cases. Might be a nice quality of life improvement for janitors, and perhaps encourage moving/saging more threads in such fringe cases.


>>8082
Another good idea, though only really a common problem on a handful of boards.

Queues are not great: they're not time sensitive, they provide no feedback and they would incentivize less accuracy in regards to requests by expediting requests for things like "non-english" which aren't even rule breaking. A queue for something as simple as moving a thread sounds great until you consider the pretty much daily occurrence of request/report pile ups that require pinging to deal with. Imagine all the threads that would archive without ever being moved if they happened to be there sitting on a queue.
A solution to the thread move problem would be for the system to automatically delete/WR/BR the given posts before archival as a fail-safe depending on whatever option the Janjan designated. After all, what is a move request if not an act of mercy towards a rule violation?

>>8083
I think archival request/permissions would be more appropriate than autosage, as manual autosage is one of the few moderation actions of this site which is deceptive in nature, and I foresee any potential overuse of it causing more trouble than it is worth.
Archiving accomplishes the same intention most of the time while being perceptible, and is still less severe than a delete.

>>8084
/mu/ actually does have semi-frequent non-english posts in certain generals.
>>8087
>>8082
i would second these, although like another janon posted above, queues are a bit of an issue with this idea.

>>8083
Being able to permasage could be nice, because occasionally there's a thread which isn't rulebreaking, but it's developed into a trashfire and you may as well accelerate the burn by cutting the bumping.

>>8087
On the other hand, you make a good point.

>>8084
>though currently I don't feel they are high demand.
This is because janitors don't feel like they should be pinging the mods for trifling things like that. It's only when it requires immediate mod attention that mods actually get pinged (e.g. GR1 or GR10) so the only threads that get sage / move requested are the ones with 100+ posts. If these two options are given to the janitors you would see a massive uptick of threads getting moved / permasaged probabily to the point it'll get overused which can be an issue in and of itself if this is true:

>The vast majority of rulebreaking is/should be Banned

The fight for giving janitors permasage / archival / move request ability has already been fought and lost & the reason is likely to do with the fact that almost no threads would be deleted. For example, one could even leave a porn thread up under premise that it could be moved to /b/ while most shitpost threads would be set on autosage instead of just deleted. It can feel harsh deleting a funpost thread but considering how many are created per hour permasaging them all just doesn't cut it.

I mean, I would enjoy having the ability to request for permasage, archival or move from the queue but there would have to be some clear guidelines for when these requests are OK.

Feature request:
>GR#8.1 Complementing 4chan
FOR TEH LULZ

>>8081 (OP)
there needs to be a "dumb coomerbait post" template.

>>8102
it's called the hide thread button

>>8103
janny BTFO by BASED MOD

>>8103
whoops ive been using the ban button this whole time

>>8102
out of curiosity, how do you feel about coffee?

>>8103
Baste and redpiled