Search results for "5b1058fba1f4a7003ee74cbbcc7bd01f" in md5 (3)

/co/ - Making x-women Betsy and Rachel lesbians was a smart move
Anonymous No.150056306
>>150046954
How can they be the one true pairing when they should be part of my harem
/co/ - Reed Richards
Anonymous No.149473077
>>149472686
based land poster
/j/ - /somgg/ - Spitting on moot's Grave General
Anonymous No.4899
/somgg/ - Spitting on moot's Grave General
With moot finally giving hiro the keys to the kingdom and /qa/ back up for now, everyone is talking about how all possible boards should be created, deleted, split and merged at once. And one or two other site suggestions too.

So I figured now would be the best time to start up a discussion of how our moderation practices and policies could be improved. I don't know what ideas the mods and other higher-ups have or haven't discussed amongst themselves, so if they've got some input that they can let slip, or if an idea presented here isn't feasible for reasons us janis don't know, that'd be helpful to hear about.

imho, the biggest problem I see is the lack of communication with the community. Rules inevitably leave a lot of room for interpretation, and even when we're trying to enforce them in an unbiased manner, it leaves a lot of questions for the users about why this is allowed or that isn't, why was I banned, why wasn't that other anon. And if nobody else is filling in those blanks for them, they'll fill them in themselves with their own made up reasons and repeat them until they're accepted as fact. To some degree this is inevitable because of the nature of the 4chan community, but I think to a large degree it's preventable if we would just clarify why we took the actions we did.

Obviously, the implication here would be to make more mod/admin posts or stickies when they're necessary to address ongoing issues on the boards as they crop up. Janitors who're more familiar with the board at hand could inform the mods of the general situation and ask the mods if they'd publicly put in a word of clarification.

The two arguments against this that I can think of are 1) that it's just too much work for the mod team, which is understandable but I can't know if that'd be the case, and 2) that mod posts are too disruptive to threads. To that I say, mod posts are usually needed in threads that are already facing disruption, and wouldn't be frequent enough to make a (cont)