No.20950
oh fuck were slowly turning more bureaucratic like all imageboards that take themselves too seriously do
No.20951
14.f should get a predefined. maybe a day, idk.
You should just get rid of 14.g because you actively go out of your way to avoid enforcing it.
No.20952
How does the janguard define "low-quality posting"?
No.20953
>>20952Good question, that definition may be a little vague.
No.20954
Is this meant to appease whiners (especially that one tripfag), lighten the job of jannies so they can ban more easily, or both
No.20955
1hLow-quality posting
No.20956
>>20954Both I guess. I do think personally that the huge variance in ban lengths is a bit of an issue. In my opinion ban lengths should congregate in this rough time order:
10 minutes to an hour: if it seems like a leftypol regular has lost his composure
1 hour to a few hours: opinions that could come from a leftist but are too cancerous to allow on the board
1 day to a few days: weird and disruptive posts that are well outside the leftypol orthodoxy, but are also not /that/ bad. (eg shilling for NATO, or whatever)
7 days to a few weeks: not really sure what this range is useful for. It's too long for actual honest users but too short for raiders. perhaps 7 days to 10 days is a decent length for posts that are cancerous but could possibly be from a regular user (though it seems unlikely)
30 days: /pol/ spam or general spam (like advertising etc)
permaban: persistent raiders, illegal content, etc
But I dunno, my mind is not really made up yet.
No.20957
Is this reform just so you can unban Junko? lmao
No.20959
>>20957We have been pondering over this for a few months but never got round to it. IIRC Junko's ban is only for like a week more anyways
No.20960
What about repeated offenders? Double the time?
I think spamming should be forever and that off-topic just deletion or move to the appropriated board, no need to ban for that.
No.20961
>>20960Yes, I don't think there's much need to ban for off topic either, good point.
The reason why we don't put spam as permaban is because IPs cycle a lot so someone innocent could get a permabanned IP, or someone could get all the popular VPNs permabanned, etc. If someone spams from the same IP twice though it can be reasonably assumed that they're the only one that will use it.
No.20962
another bantopia by modocracy
No.20963
999 days questioning mods actions
No.20964
No plans for a 3 day ban?
No.20965
>>20964Perhaps, what do you suggest for it?
No.20967
Complaining about you jannoids should be protected speech
No.20968
>>20957I didn't even notice, no wonder the board has been slower lately.
What was the given reason?
No.20969
>>209651 day bans are kinda light if you have a life.
I'm just throwing the idea out there is all.
No.20970
>>20969Maybe, but we also don't want to drive people away from the site altogether, or cause them to ban evade by using a VPN or whatever.
No.20971
>>20954conceptually the standard ban length thing is supposed to make it more clear and fair to users on what they get banned for and how long, but in reality we so rarely ban regular users that it hardly gets used. At least I am always banning fucking /pol/ spam or namefag bullshit, plus the odd glowops in the ukraine thread, all of which fall outside of our own userbase.
Some mods also worry about dependency in ban times, but usually they don't realize that they are repeat offenders who really don't deserve the kind of consideration they are given.
really I just think its barking up the wrong tree, priority wise. it has a use-case, sure, but its not going to be the most used tool in the toolbox.
No.20972
>low quality posts
this is both very subjective and most of the website
how low quality are we talking?
No.20973
>>20972>this is both very subjectiveyes and?
No.20974
Before even getting to the subject of ban length, we should really focus on how utterly subjective and thus prone to abuse the current ruleset has become. When did we arrive at this situation? Certainly I can remember attempts to define more concrete, unambiguous rule violations in the past.
No.20975
>>20974the current rules are so prone to abuse barely anyone gets banned
No.20976
>>20975It's interesting how your first reflex was to interpret that as referencing
abuse by users instead of jannies' ability to abuse the users by interpreting ambiguous rules for their own self-serving purpose.
No.20977
>>20974>>20976never seen someone get banned that didn't deserve it
quite the opposite, more people probably should
No.20978
>>20976>It's interesting how your first reflex was to interpret that as referencing abuse by usersuhh what? learn to read
No.20979
btw, /pol/ stands for politically incorrect in general, not necessarily related to the imageboard /pol/
i.e, if you're not into woke radlib stuff that means you're a nazi
No.20980
>>20979>btw, /pol/ stands for politically incorrect in general, not necessarily related to the imageboard /pol/In what fucking world
No.20981
The moderation team we currently have is good because they barely care about the place and are more concerned with the matrix circlejerk. Frankly mods that care too much about the imageboard they're moderating are always a big red flag.
No.20982
>>1018419
I wish they would ban more radlib tourists…
No.20983
>>20982what does radlib even mean, socdems?
No.20984
>>20983>What does radlib even mean,Watever you want it to mean.
No.20985
Thank God finally the mods will ban people based on breaking actual rules instead of breaking their fee fees.
The dev literally had to make the ban feature retard proof in order for this to work.
Never again ban people for "glow" you faggots.
No.20986
>1d Low-quality posting
such a cope lmao
No.20987
>no more 30 minute bans
>no more few hour bans
>bans start w 1 day
FUCK. YOU.
No.20988
>>20985>>20986>>20987bans can still be made independent of the predefined reasons, and that will never change.
No.20989
>>209884klan has repeatedly fired jannies and mods for not using the default ban messages, though my guess is it's just an excuse to get rid of staffers that RapeApe doesn't like.
No.20990
>>20987I literally said in the OP that the current list was a placeholder, why can nobody read
No.20991
>>20990>why can nobody readwe really put the /pol/ in leftypol
No.20992
>>20957Junko was banned? Good, extend it.
No.20994
I dont care if you jannies ban be for a year or for 30 seconds. I just need to post on /meta/ to complain about it.
You dont fucking get what i had to do to get a phone to post on this website just to get myself unbanned
>inb4 off topic
Idc
Also, add a ban for low quality baiting. I dont want this website to turn into another 4/pol/ once it gets famous.
Add a standard message when you get banned for it, like, "read-a marx" with a photoshopped version of super mario with the face of marx or something.
No.20996
>>20994BaI lets you post on their meta board if you get globally banned unless you also have a ban on that one board.
I wish leftypol copied more functions from textboards to be honest…
No.20997
>>20994Also,
>Add a standard message when you get banned for itTerrible idea. Bans shouldn't be public executions, that's something moot in his 13-year-old mind thought was a good idea to bring over from SA.
If a post is breaking a rule it should get deleted or at the very least not bring even more attention with a fucking bold red message that causes further derailment.
No.20999
>>20971Then make bans public, leftypol is a fork of lainchan who has it, so it's not something out of the capacity.
No.21000
>>20971> odd glowops in the ukraine threadYou mean the people who dare to not suck Putin's dick?
> inb4 I get banned for this No.21001
>>20950>10d /pol/Pretty sure that's not a rule
protip: i helped write the rulesThe whole benefit of pre-made b& reasons is you don't get vague bullshit. Name the premade reasons after the rules.
No.21002
"Low-quality" is pretty subjective . What is a low quality comment to one person may be an insightful comment to another person.
Perhaps just roll the definition of "Low-quality" in with "Off-topic" because they are pretty much the same thing in my opinion .
For example , If we are discussing a specific philosopher's ideas and some idiot rolls in and starts dropping irrelevant memes or being an asshat.
No.21003
>>20950No this is good, my main IP was permabanned, this isn't 'serious' this is a move towards laxity.
No.21004
>>20958That's what Junko wants you to think.
No.21005
>>20997>If a post is breaking a rule it should get deleted or at the very least not bring even more attention with a fucking bold red message that causes further derailment.What do you think of lainchan warnings (bluetext) on OPs?
Browse a board thread list and you'll quickly see warnings like 'shit thread, be more descriptive' but the thread stays up otherwise untouched.
>>21002>"Low-quality" is pretty subjective . What is a low quality comment to one person may be an insightful comment to another person. It really is. Especially when politics are involved and a site has approximately 0 barrier of entry and is named after a /pol/ board, which is a place that is notoriously low quality.
Is low quality really the offense?
>>20950>>21003If no-one complained, they probably wouldn't have bothered putting in this effort.
>>20963Thank You Based Stalin
>>20999If you mean ban logs, they're already public. See /meta/.
If you mean redtext/bluetext, they're available but rarely used from my experience. A big issue is that it doesn't show up until refreshing so it's pretty ineffective in fast/real-time threads.
No.21006
>>20949>1d Low-quality posting>1d Off-topic>10d /pol/>30d Spam>30d Ban evasion>forever Illegal contentPray tell to which category does the "banned for saying wrong-speech about Russia that is nowhere in the rules vecause it was posted in our carefully curated Grayzoneite thread" reason go?
Anyways, I do think this is actually a good change, but you know what would be better? Mandating jannies to actually study their own rules and tell what exactly you violated. Or are you just too conflicted by unspecified "internal discussions" to change the rules to fit in the things you wanna see banned? Because as I said months ago, you wanna make anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine/non-Grayzone narative bannable, then double the fuck down and do it instead of pretending to keep up a fascade of plausable deniability and cop-out excuses like "well it just decreases thread quality to say those things".
And just to trigger Pascal (or I assume it was him who had a meltie over this) some more, Nazis are people too and, if at all possible, should be treated as such. Sorry if it hurts your feelings to accept simple psychological and biological facts like that even if ideology fucks up your brain, you are still just as human as anyone else. Now let's see if you gimme anothet sweet 2 week ban for this shocking and outrageous statement. No.21007
>>21006Who the fuck is Pascal
No.21008
>10 days for /pol/
It's joever thingnoticerbros
No.21009
>>21007Oh, sorry, pasquale. I assumed its another French idiotism of writing "quale" to say "cal", but nope, turns out that is Italian and actually pronounced like its spelled, who knew. How very foolish of me.
No.21010
Jannies setting up their own subreddit
No.21011
>>21007if you don't know who the menace Pasquale is, its because you are new.
>>21010always has been.
No.21012
Good move, more clarity and congruency is in the interests of the users and fairness, to stop powerabuse or biases from creeping in.
People complaining about it being "too much effort from the mods" should shut up
No.21013
>>20949i feel like there should be a shorter low quality posting ban length.
if someone's made one shit post they don't need to be told to fuck off for a whole day - and they won't, they'll unplug their router, resent the ban and forget the lesson - ban them from an hour or two and it's not really worth the effort of getting up to unplug the router, they'll wait and they won't feel half as bad about it because it's just a gentle reminder rather than being effectively told to fuck off.
more generally: an inconsistency in ban lengths is not necessarily a bad thing. rules are always violated to a greater or lesser degree. some people need to be gently reminded that /isg/ isn't /usapol/, which could be done with a short ban, others might need to be gently reminded that /usapol/ isn't /anorectalviolencepol/ by being kicked out indefinitely.
>>20974subjectivity isn't really a bad thing. what's needed is reflexivity.
that is, mods should ban with subjective judgement, and the userbase should judge those bans. not in some rigid bureaucratic way, but just by discussing the matter, such as in a moderation general. (crucially,
not in matrix.)
>>20997it ought to vary from ban to ban
(and sometimes perhaps public humiliation without a ban is enough.)
No.21014
>>20997This poster is completely wrong. This forum/community has had a recurring problem for years now of mods doing driveby discussion nuking so that when someone gets banned entire threads get shat on and no longer possible to follow the discussion chain. If anything we need far less post deletion than is currently happening. In reality, public ban messages are an essential means of holding moderation accountable by forcing mods to justify their decisions out in the open. Disappearing posts should only be reserved for blatantly illegal content that nobody wants to see on their computer.
No.21015
>>21014If we don't delete people's posts when they get banned, there's essentially no deterrence against bait because people will still respond to it and anon's shitty take will still be there for all to see, with a big red 'pay attention to me' sticker.
No.21016
>>21014Sometimes we cant ban/punish posters coz it is a throwaway IP or TOR so deleting is the only effective way of moderation.
No.21020
>>21014>If anything we need far less post deletion than is currently happening.lmao get fucked
>public ban messages are an essential means of holding moderation accountabledid you forget the public staff logs………………
No.21021
Does this apply retrospectively?
for example, if I have been "perma-banned" for one of the things listed other than illegal content is that ban now lifted?
No.21022
>>21021no, the ban categories are not the only way people can get banned. just a quick method to categorize some common bans into a standardized ban length.
No.21023
>and here we come to the main issue: mods don't know what organic growth and discussion is. all they know is micromanaging threads, hoping the discussion goes in a direction they want. but just like you can't keep trim a plant, then water it, then replant it, then add nutrients, then remove them, etc. it stresses the plant and the plant withers and dies, or its growth is stunted and it grows into a bad plant. that is what we have here. /leftypol/ is a dying tree. and instead of watering it and leaving it be, the mods are. cutting off whole branches that have a few bad leaves. there's barely anything left of this tree, a few leaves and a trunk, and rotting roots.
>the biggest issue I see is that mods think they are content curators>>>/leftypol_archive/557475 No.21024
>>21020As a small digression, if you are who I think you are, you are without a doubt one of the worst posters across multiple boards and it is truly a mystery how anyone thought you had the mental disposition to be a moderator. Nearly every one of your posts would fall under the "low-quality posting" rule and would qualify for deletion or banning, but of course it won't… because that's a completely subjective rule prone to abuse by interpretation (and naturally arrogant mods think they're above the rules). You are yourself a good argument for why that rule shouldn't even exist.
No.21025
>>21024>if you are who I think you arei am not.
ive never identified myself on this shithole
No.21026
Blah blah we will have schizophrenic glow bans when you critizise Russian imperialism.
No.21027
>>20949Alanya being threatened by red fascists is good mascot of this site.
No.21029
>>21015you really need to understand there is a large difference between a post that is, kinda shit, or, a little controversial and, a post that is so abominable that it cannot under any circumstance be allowed
No.21030
>>21029Do you? We generally don't even touch the former. If only you knew how many report we dismiss because the rationale of the report is so asinine at worst or debatable at best.
No.21031
>>21015Ok… but then all the responses will just be a dunk on the posters final post.
>>20949What does /pol/ even mean?
What does off-topic even mean?
Stupid. Also I've seen much longer bans than those for anything.
No.21032
>>21031>Ok… but then all the responses will just be a dunk on the posters final post. Why do you want more of this? 'dunking' on some retard to 'totally own' the reactoid with 'le epic maymays' is not exactly something we dont have every day.
What on earth part of you wants to make this place more of a shithole for?
No.21033
>>21029and you need to understand that most posts dont fall under this ridiculous binary youre presenting
No.21034
>>21032think about le memes!!!
No.21036
>>21035this is correct. one of the splits was over MLs being autistic about Rojava. this place is only good because its the only place i know with a good spread of every ideology
No.21037
>>21035Honestly, I kind of agree with you, however 'glow' is usually/often used as a shorthand for 'obnoxious liberals' in the same way as '/pol/' is used to mean 'Nazis, reactionaries, etc'.
Do people think that we should tolerate people shilling NATO talking points about a clash of civilisations with the barbaric east? (honest question, not rhetorical) It could be fun to dunk on them at least but we have to consider that letting the board fill with cancer may have bad consequences in the long term.
No.21038
>>21037> Do people think that we should tolerate people shilling NATO talking points about a clash of civilisations with the barbaric east?Nobody ever phrases it like that
No.21039
>>21030> Do you? We generally don't even touch the former. I don’t agree.
>>21033Exactly, most post should be allowed and only a very small number should be gotten rid of.
Also like I said above, complaining about the jannies should be protected speech, in order to prevent abuse
No.21040
>>21037bad foreign policy takes are the least harmful of bad takes. nobody here has any influence on foreign policy whatsoever. (perversely, this is why people get so mad about it. this impotence makes it a powerful yet cost-free way of setting up a shibboleth.) if the CIA or MI5 were spending money to shift our foreign policy views, i'd
be insulted i wasn't offered to get in on this opportunity consider that the most positive influence we could have - sucking up money and resources that would be better deployed almost anywhere else.
also, even if we take the position that a certain line is correct, this just renders the topic unfit for discussion. there have been times where the ukraine thread has felt incredibly circlejerky since nearly everyone in it was really just defining themselves against mainstream opinion via a parasocial relationship with a foreign state. maybe it's the nature of modern social media that identifiable tribes form too quickly and become tedious. (i.e. z gang here acts insufficiently distinguishable from z gang elsewhere, rather than being unambiguously of-leftypol. thus uninteresting.)
–
tl;dr of a different post i didn't write: better to get more diversity on 'domestic' policy (i.e. questions of local revolution, economy, and general structure of sociey) than to give a damn about foreign policy. where the two appear incongruous (paul mason presents: marxist NATO!), all the better to laugh at.
No.21041
>>21035Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I've been banned for "glow" like six times just because one of the brave jannies disagreed with my observation that ziggas are only serving as a fifth column in leftism.
No.21042
>>21041It’s also a pretty big laugh you can banned for “glow” but also for “schizo” or “x tier”
No.21045
>>20950>noooo muh bureaucracy, you cant organize or standardize anything !fuck off retard
>>20953given its only 1day, seem fine
>>21001makes sense
>>20971>always banning fucking /pol/ spam or namefag bullshit, plus the odd glowops based janguard
>>21006namefag reetards likee you should be ban on sight anyway
the moderation is pretty ok these days so do whatever you want to the saboteurs
No.21046
>>21039>I don’t agree. With what? Your fee-fees? Do you want to know how many reports are in the queue as of right? And the reasons for said reports? And how many I responded?
Check the public logs No.21047
>>21035>hey just serve as excuse for [stuff mod doesn't likeNo they don't, liar.
Anti-Secterian bans are almost always just that one or two autists reee-ing about anarchists or MLs in an attempt to create a homogeneous board politic.
These are not worth keeping.
No.21048
>>21039>complaining about the jannies should be protected speech, in order to prevent abuseit is if you werent a retard and used the right board for it
i dont want to see meta shit outside of meta
No.21049
>>21045>you cant organize or standardize anythingyeah exactly, standards are ass especially on a fucking imageboard, go to social media if you want adherence to standards
No.21050
>>21046It’s your fee fees that lead to the deletion of posts which are slightly controversial. I’ll provide a detailed list when I’m home of posts that sometimes aren’t even really controversial and certainly not abominable
>>21048Currently banned for talking about meta shit in a /b/ thread somebody else made.. whatever standards you pretend I’m not adhering to are always a lie. The fact is you banned me because I said things about you you don’t want to face up to.
No.21051
>>21050>I’ll provide a detailed list when I’m home of posts Of course conflating the personal to the general.
No.21052
>>21051Very few of them are mine actually, if any I can’t remember
No.21053
>>21051But of course, it’s just yet another side step from you lot.
No.21054
>>21052>>21053You quite literally admitted to ban evasion and still are very sour about being banned.How is that a side step?
It is very obvious you are using this thread about discussing generic ban lengths as a soapbox for your personal grievances, which probably what got you banned in the first place.
No.21056
>>21055Yes the war thread is some bullshit, you will be banned for weeks at a time for being critical of their absolute nonsense.
it is just janoids showing their true colors again, just like they did with the whole infrared shit.
Unique IPs: 49