After a small discussion in the IRC, I've realized a few of us have been using BR'S as way to warn someone when no immediate ban is needed. What I mean is, if someone is contributing to a thread with on topic material and shit-posting every so often in between do they really need to be banned? -What if deleting these posts only eggs the poster on, or alludes him to think he/she is immune from the rules? I've seen this very scenario happen a few times and I think I may have found a solution.A warning button.If a poster is breaking a rule it results in a BR, which can have them banned for a day or more. Sometimes I feel a post doesn't warrant a ban but does need to be removed. In these instances I delete said post and carry on, however this does often result in, "WHY WAS MY POST DELETED? FUCK YOU JANI/MOD"Which again, is breaking a rule and starts a shit-show of off topic discussion. I hate having it escalate to that point so in the IRC I brought up the discussion of a warning button, with good feedback. I was instructed to do a write-up here and await results.I know certain boards like /r9k/ dish out warnings for unoriginal posts and will mute a poster for a certain amount of times, and add time as offenses increase. I was wondering if there would be a way to integrate a lo-fi version of this into our tools.The first warning could just let the poster know what they are doing is breaking a rule, and give them the benefit of the doubt with no penalty, only escalate from that point forward.I understand this system could be abused pretty easily, but if we stuck to it like we did the rules I think we'd have a lot less 'culture' drama from certain boards.Also if this is not feasible or plausible please let me know and I will delete this thread and never bring it up again. (Or a mod can!)Thanks guys.
I'm 100% for this.
I don't remember the exact conversation, but when this was brought up in IRC, moot said it was possible that janitors would be given a checkbox/toggle to submit warn requests instead of ban requests, using the existing templates. Nothing is likely to happen any time soon, but the idea has at least been considered.
>"WHY WAS MY POST DELETED? FUCK YOU JANI/MOD" Which again, is breaking a rule and starts a shit-show of off topic discussion.No it's not. Someone venting their frustrations in a "fuck u janny" post isn't applicable for a G8 ban unless they are intentionally and maliciously trying to derail the thread. I hope you ain't hitting up every bloke who complains about you doing it for free.Global wide Waning request option sounds fucking nifty tho.
I'm completely for this idea. I know that this is sort of backwards from what you just said, but, at least on my board, I'd like to have an option to do a deletion after the warning . An example would be if a post fails to meet image requirements within 12 hours on /hm/ I automatically do a deletion but It would be nice to let the poster know that he shouldn't just have the other people of the board do his work for him. In that example, I can see a use for a checkbox or something that would let us delete after warn.
>>4060>Someone venting their frustrations in a "fuck u janny" post isn't applicable for a G8 ban unless they are intentionally and maliciously trying to derail the thread. I hope you ain't hitting up every bloke who complains about you doing it for free.This. I never use GR8 unless it's a troll trying to actively derail a thread. People should be allowed to vent, it's why they're here.
I think for a warning button to be effective, it would need to do more than just be a warning, in my opinion. I have a couple of suggestions.First, I think if a poster is BR'ed, the mods would need to know how many times he's been warned, similar to how we know if a poster already has a pending BR. It would offer a little more insight into considering the posting quality of the anon if he's getting regular warnings.Second, I think over a fixed period of time, the warnings need to escalate in effectiveness. As OP suggested, the 1st warning should have no penalty. A second warning within an hour for example, could give a 5 minute mute. Beyond that, a BR can be considered for quality of posts. A report would then show multiple offences, in this example, for a G6 BR to be considered for the mods.That's my take anyway. I feel the above suggestions could help tackle the more regular shitposters who appear on boards of higher traffic. As an /sp/ janitor I feel that being able to warn posters who tread the water on their posting quality would be useful.
>>4060>>4062No, I delete those unless they are persistent. I love the joke as much as the next guy, but I don't need an influx of shitposting because someone lost a post when they didn't realize they did anything wrong.I (probably like all of you) believe my board is very culturally different. We get a lot of users who only browse this specific board for it's content, and do not know about or even browse 4chan as a whole. A lot of them are unfamiliar with the rules and I would rather not have to delete and ban everyone. I just want to keep my board happy and clean.Thank you for the support!
I think a warning button would be neat. Just a way to kinda let posters know "hey, you're being watched, cut the shit." Is more than effective than clogging up mod ques with bans constantly.
I support this idea!
>>4060But it is breaking a rule when someone starts a whole new thread to complain about 4chan and the moderation. A reply is nothing, but starting threads is a nuisance.
>>4059I think this would be good.
I agree with this idea. It isn't giving janitors any more power, since we can already delete or even batch delete posts, all it's doing is giving more information to the poster as to why their post was deleted.
I agree with this idea but I also have a proposal for another feature which I am not sure is even possible:It would be nice to be able to delete "trees" of posts. By that I mean, say somebody posts dubs and every reply to him is dubs, or some dumbass thing:There should be a button to delete that post, and all replies to that post.The problem with this is that I'm not sure it's easy to do, just knowing how 4chan operates.
>>4143That's way too destructive a feature for janitors to have. If you need to delete more than one post at once, use the checkboxes.
>>4144I have, but when you have a lot of posts to take action against (particularly when you're trying to save a thread from a cross-board shitstorm or spam) it can be rough on the finger.I don't think it's any more destructive than what we have now. Doing it manually is simply harder.
>>4145If you delete a tree of replies with a single click you can have no idea what you're deleting along with it. It could be a huge number of posts or contain good content that just happened to quote one of the offending posts. "Delete all" and similar are just not janitor-level abilities.
The new warning checkbox is a godsend. Thank you based overlord for this new tool, my life has become 300% easier.
