Thread 9166

Why is the off-topic ban so short? It should be longer.

It is a gentle bonk, a friendly warning to not do that. Bans and warns are the only feedback users can directly receive. It's not just a ban, it's a corrective measure. It's the naughty step, think about what you've posted, and come back in time to finish your dinner.
Users who repeatedly perform the SAME off-topic bullshit can be treated differently, as they might fall into spamming.

>>9166 (OP)
I was thinking it needed to be shorter

It should be longer for OPs and 3 days for regular posts imo desu senpai.

>>9174
Unironically this

>>9166 (OP)
Will somebody please think of the coffee posters, politics posters, talking about fapping posters, twitter screencap posters, frog posters, basedposters...!
Just kidding, one day is plenty. Most people that wouldn't be dissuaded by a 1 day ban wouldn't be dissuaded by a 3 day ban either and would likely evade it.

>>9185
Twitter screencap posters should just be perma'd tbhfam

>>9166 (OP)
+1

>>9166 (OP)
If people are repeatedly causing problems, we can individually ban them for longer if needed. Being heavy-handed over one-off minor infractions just encourages disrespect for the rules.

Bans should be shorter because bans only affect honest posters who didn't mean any harm. The harmful posters just evade their bans anyway.

What if bans for trolling, racism, and rolling outside of /b/ still let you post on /b/? Might be a good way to bring some life back to the board.

>>9221
I think this is a great idea if the ban explicitly states that /b/ is still allowed - at least some people who might habitually evade for those rules specifically might be encouraged to check out /b/ if so.

>twitter screencap of someone talking about their 3-year-old being trans
>"what are some kinos"
>3-day ban
>thread of a frog with "I've never been to Disneyland"
>3-day ban

There should be a differentiation between off-topic and off-topic in bad faith/bait. Based on 4bans rule 3 trolling doesn't cover the first type of posts

>>9325
Seems to me like the most reasonable solution is to have two BR options: 1a - Off Topic (3 days) and 1b - Off Topic (5 days).
>>9221
This seems like an interesting suggestion as well.

>>9325
warns versus bans, my friend

>>9327
If you look at actual bans given both posts would be given three days.

>>9327
If you look at ban histories both posts are treated the same

There is a far deal greater danger posed by bad faith off topic, as they are actively trying to move the Overton Window of what's accepted on the board. We go from "this is /v/, you talk about video games here" to "yeah, so long as you mention 'any games like this?' in the OP you can talk about whatever you want". If allowed to go on long enough, the board just becomes unusable and near impossible to janny because half the threads are some level of off topic, and the board is far too fast to do anything about it.

If the concern is that Jannies shouldn't be worried about user motives (and to be fair, we don't have the tools to see which anons are repeat offenders), then make it a Mod-only thing. It doesn't really matter, all I can say is that three day timeouts are insufficient, as the offending parties just view the ban as the stifling of discussion and do not reflect on their actions at all - they already know they're breaking the rules, that's why they trying to disguise the thread's actual topic to begin with.
>>9221
This is an interesting countersolution, although I wouldn't let trolling, racism, and rolling slide. Instead focus on bad faith off topic, and politely direct these anons to a place where they can discuss whatever they want as much as they like. There is a small glimmer of 'good faith' after all, they do just want to talk about something. They're just in the wrong place and they know it.

>>9220
This, might as well allow CP because CPposters just avoid their bans anyways

>>9343
Don't say things like this, even sarcastically. This topic is taken very seriously.

>>9221
Interesting idea.

>>9325
Agree.

>>9344
The statement is way out of pocket, but it's one of biggest problems with how easy it is to evade bans IMO. General troublemakers is one thing, but I think it's very concerning that it's very easy for someone to very easily get away with violating GR1.
The worst kinds have more advanced means for avoiding bans, but any idiot can put their phone into airplane mode.

>>9166 (OP)
>>9325
remember that we are janitors. we make the ban requests. we don't have the final say - we are basically deleting posts and telling a mod "hey, I think this was breaking the rules". It is up to the mod to decide how to proceed. If they think a user is acting in extremely bad faith, or if they have been banned for posting the same thing before, they have the discretion to increase the ban length.

>a thread like this on /tv/ is a 3 day ban

What about stackable offenses? This is unambiguously racist, not even an attempt to be on-topic, in extremely bad faith, and a 1000% guarantee they will post again or evade

>>9381
We're not a federal court, we don't stack sentences or compound them unless it's really fucking severe, and in that case it's most likely someone is a repeat offender and the final reason is "ban evasion".
As far as I can tell bans aren't punishment, they're a wake-up call.
Also, mods don't have time to go through each BR like it's a federal court case, which is why when something is weird, complex, or has a lot of lead up it's better for us to ping them in moderation chat and explain in advance, rather than filling out a BR that makes no sense out of context.

It's also a lot easier to start finding other violations once you've decided someone deserves one template, which would just push bans up when we're in a bad mood or when a poster has pushed our particular buttons.
What about if something deserves multiple warns? Ironic shitposting often also contains irrelevant catchphrases and gibberish text. There's a lot of overlap.

It would likely feel a lot worse to realise a BR was denied if you personally felt that it deserved a bunch of stacked things, but a mod felt the post overall was OK - and as I said above, I think it'd be easy to start seeing reasons to stack templates on one post once you decide it needs to go.

finally, Anonymous##Developer would probably have to recode the whole interface to allow for stackable-offense BRs.

Mods can and do amend templates if they're significantly off base, and perhaps an "Egregious" checkbox that adds two days to a ban, upgrading a 1 to a 3, and a 3 to a 5, without changing the base template would be something an alternative 4chan might have developed in a world where moderation was a bit more stringent, but if users realise they're getting variable numbers of days for similar offenses, or even being flat out told "you have been banned for THREE days for EGREGIOUS off-topic posting" while a similar shitposter got only one for non-egregious offtopic, then users start getting uppity about inconsistent jannying.

>>9381
the way i got explained about it was that the people who knowingly act like cunts can evade, and do so easily, so a longer ban does nothing

bans for people who don't evade- may as well be short, since it's more likely they'll refrain from breaking a rule next time, and the end result is to ''rehabilitate''''' not punish so why not keep it shorter

and either one serves the purpose of removing a rule breaking post

>>9383
>"you have been banned for THREE days for EGREGIOUS off-topic posting"
the ones who got these bans would wear them like a badge of honor. if they're posting poorly enough to deserve a modifier like that, they weren't posting in good faith to begin with

>>9383
The point isn't how it works during BRs or what they see, it's just the idea that a post like that deserves a longer ban than 3 days. The idea >>9385
"lol no point in bans because posters will post anyways" is obviously the correct approach

>it's a low-effort off-topic, NSFW, troll post with 250 replies
>"sorry, best I can do is three days"
>"by the time they notice it they'll evade anyways so these bans just don't stick"

>>9383
>and perhaps an "Egregious" checkbox that adds two days to a ban, upgrading a 1 to a 3, and a 3 to a 5,
the "egregious" checkbox should, instead of banning, do this: for a period of time (say 3-5 days) append "I AM A GIANT FAGGOT" to the user's posts, but mask this from the user's IP. So they think they are posting as normal and everyone else knows they are a giant faggot
not shadowbanning, SHADEbanning

>>9383
I do sometimes think it would be nice if there was some kind of comments box or something where you could optionally add extra context that wouldn't be obvious at first glance from that post alone that only the mod handling the BR will see. There have been times I've used the discord for this, but since it rarely actually feels important enough to go ping all the mods over I'm not sure how often it actually gets seen by the right person beforehand.

>>9963
Agreed. Would save time for mods too, if jannies can add a tiny bit of context so mods don't need to go through a thread to see what happened in the rest of the thread. Limit it to like 40 characters too to avoid BS, just short messages like "known evader"

>>9963
Agree intensely with this. Would make things so much more efficient.

>>9964
>>9965
Adding context wouldn't save them time, it'd take longer. We'd all start adding little extra bits of context to everything, and suddenly filling BRs starts to take longer and longer.

If the field is there, people will use it, even if it's "meant" to be only for rare occasions.

I thought rule breaking should be obvious, and the post itself should be all the context needed

>>9966
I mean there's nothing stopping the mods from just ignoring it if it's clearly irrelevant bullshit, or maybe calling out jannies that abuse it too much if necessary to quit wasting everybody's time.
>>9967
I think not every violation of the rules, even "obvious" ones, will necessarily be 100% clear from a single post taken in a vacuum though. I mean to give an example I'm a /vt/ janny so doxx/IRL stuff comes up a lot that sometimes requires a bit of background knowledge of the people involved to know what is and isn't referencing such info, being able to make a quick note so the mod understands what they're seeing could be helpful. Also things like recurring trolls that have been doing the same schtick for weeks/months might seem to only deserve a warning based on the single post taken in a vacuum but should probably be noted if they've been doing the same thing for a while. Of course mods can determine that stuff on their own with some investigation, but there's some possibility for the janitor to save them some time and just explain their reasoning up front if they don't think it will be immediately obvious.

>>9968
>I mean there's nothing stopping the mods from just ignoring it if it's clearly irrelevant bullshit
They still need to read it and process whether it IS irrelevant bullshit. When everything's operating smoothly it might not make things worse, but it would probably slow things down significantly when there are less mods having to wade through more BRs. We've all seen a mod ping go out to come help with BRs, after all.

As jannies, it's easy for us to think "It'd be nice if we had this or that feature to pass things up the chain to the mods without having to just go to discord and flag down whoever's online", but such things would probably clog the pipes further up. Jannies are a filter system, and the more tools we have that just pass the burden of thinking and debating up to the mods, the more work they have compared to us, the less well we're functioning as that filter.

>>9969
Well, I think there would also be a lot of cases where the violation is obvious enough on its own without needing to look at any additional info, even if some was provided where the mod probably would just hit the ban button and move on without wasting any more time on it. So the real potential for wasted time would be cases where the violation isn't immediately obvious and the janny decided to write an essay about it, and yeah I guess it's up to people higher up the food chain than us on whether allowing that kind of thing to happen is worth it.

>>9970
yeah. It's not a terrible idea to consider, but it's probably way more appealing from the janny end of things than the mod end of things, and we don't know what their tools / interface / workload look like.

>>9962
what if I already write that in all of my posts anyway?

>>9972
then you're egregiously based

>>9964
Specifically for known evaders this seems unnecessary. You can just BR them for Ban Evasion, you don't need to explain that you're BRing for ban evasion. Either the mods trust your judgment or they slide into your Discord DMs for clarification, and that little note changes nothing.

>>9966
>>9969
>>9970
>>9971
>>9974
Do all jannies just disagree with literally all suggestions on principle? All your arguments can also be applied against including templates in the janitor tools:
>rule breaking should be obvious, and the post itself should be all the context needed
>Adding the [template] wouldn't save them time, it'd take longer
>the more tools we have that just pass the burden of thinking and debating up to the mods
>it's probably way more appealing from the janny end of things than the mod end of things

>>9967
This I think is one of the biggest myths. Not everyone has the same knowledge, what is 'obvious' to someone might be glossed over entirely by someone else. There is a reason after all that you apply to a specific board and are asked about the kinds of problems on that board when applying, specific boards have specific issues that people without knowledge may not be aware of.
Also the 'no context needed' entirely flies out of the window in situations like spamming. One post may be harmless taken in isolation, but taking it in isolation could be ignoring that otherwise "harmless" post spammed a thousand times in a thread.
There are also situations where a reply to a post may qualify as racism/trolling, but you would need to see the post being replied to in order to tell that.

>>9980
>There is a reason after all that you apply to a specific board and are asked about the kinds of problems on that board when applying
I always thought my application got accepted because I said that the posters on my board are wonderful lovely people and we have no major problems. :/

If someone is spamming then I just BR for spamming and cross my fingers that the mods will understand that there are also some other posts they might not be seeing.

>>9984
usually it's pretty obvious, especially if they're spamming garbage posts, but it never hurts to drop a message in moderation about it, or get ping 1-2 people. it's nicer that way, too, since we have better tools available to clean up their mess if they've also been spamming elsewhere

>>9325
To illustrate my point of distinguishing between off-topic and off-topic bait/in bad faith:

Pic related are all OPs, guaranteed to be 3-day bans. I propose
>GR3 trolling encompasses off-topic bait/off-topic in bad faith
>minimum 7 days

>regular off-topic (3 days)
3, 4, 7, 8, 9
>off-topic bait aka trolling (7 days)
the rest (i.e. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10)

>>10137
I think I've read mod posts saying that 3 days for trolling is calculated to be enough to make people reconsider but not long enough they automatically evade. Certainly, the pinned post at the top of /j/ asks mods to not ban over 3 days for minor things.

>Also just fyi your image lacks a thread #5, you don't address thread #2, and you list thread #4 in both. I assume you meant to say thread 2 is bait?

>>10138
Oops, I deleted my post to re-edit it and yeah, I think #2 should be off-topic bait. The stickied post is 7 years old, I don't remember this many "what are some kinos" or "what are some video games" posts in 2017

Idk guys, it kind of just seems like you're discussing ways for you to ban people that made you seethe for longer. Just apply the rules as they are since most of what you're complaining about has nothing to do with length but with actual enforcement. Even if you just warned all of those posters who make "egregious bad faith bait threads" you'd be making a bigger impact on your board than if you were to give one random guy 7 days for hurting your particular sensibilities. Consistent enforcement is the number one thing that will keep that sort of posts at bay, not lengthy bans that will dissuade people from respecting what little authority you wield, let alone the actual rules of the site.

>>10140
>no attempt to be on topic (warn/3 days)
>no attempt to be on topic + material specifically designed to bait replies (longer)
Pretty simple

>>10141
>no attempt to be on topic (warn/1 day)
To be fair, you have to have a very high roman assimilation to understand the Codex Justinianus. The minutia is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of ancient Roman case law most of the punishments will go over a typical judge's head. There's also Justinian's harmonious outlook, which is deftly woven into his reforms- his personal philosophy draws heavily from a disdain for Platonism, for instance. The /biz/antines understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these laws, to realise that they're not just perfect- they say something deep about ROMA AETERNA. As a consequence people who dislike the Codex Justinianus truly ARE barbarians- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the genius in Theodora's existential catchphrase "'royal purple' is the noblest shroud" which itself is a cryptic reference to Phoenicians and their epic snails. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those stultus simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Belisarius' tactical genius unfolds itself on their barbarian kingdoms. What fools.. how I pity them.

>>10146
huh