[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge
Email
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

 No.284039[View All]

What measures would a sustainably moderatable imageboard use? Hundreds of messages or more a day with no posting filters becomes tedious for a mid-sized team to proactively monitor. In that case, how can an imageboard sustainably filter out bad posters?

- Word filters? People always find a way around them.
- Algebra or advanced math problem captchas? Selects for impressive autismo, but filters out good verbal posters with limited math skills.
- Graduating ban levels, with warnings or 3 day bans for light offenses like spam or advertising, or 6 month bans for CP, or whatever lengths are appropriate, should be considered.

What other options would be workable?
60 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.284132

>>284128
>Moderation can still perform any actions on a proxy post as they could on a bareback one
Except for the fact that performing any action to a proxy is pointless because the person will just change to another proxy, you logic is retarded
>bareback one
Why do you always have to use this gay sex slang word

 No.284134

>>284128
>Moderation can still perform any actions on a proxy post as they could on a bareback one
Except for effective bans and warnings, which is the only problem that board owners have with VPNs and the whole point of this discussion. While a proxied IP can technically be banned, it won't be any hindrance to the rule breaker's further antics, in fact she might not even see the ban at all.

>harassing users with old posts by bringing them up in completely unrelated conversations

Is that what you believe is happening in the case of Wizchan or was that just a general example of what could happen in a worse case scenario? Because that belief dates back to old Wizardchan and was started as a joke about that place being made by /r9k/ mods trying to clean the permavirgins from their precious board and mocking them back on /r9k/. A few users here parrot it but it's unknown if it's done in parody. Whenever asked for even any contributing evidence, none is ever provided, not even anecdotes about coincidences. Half of the active Wizchan userbase is also active in off-site group chats such as the Discord and Steam Group. Namefags on these platforms will talk among themselves of their lives, and if anyone happens to make a similar post on Wizchan, their fellow chatters can connect to what was said and point it out. That's the only legitimate way I can see posts being connected with evidence and it's not something one would need to be a mod to do, nor is it something I see being done.

>>284130
>That's why proxies and massive range IP bans are a recent addition to almost every single imageboard?
>recent addition
No, the ability to look up if an IP is owned by a VPN service is what's new. There has been just as much incentive in the distant pass to prevent VPN users from abusing their service as there is now. If it seems like board owners and staff are suddenly more active in banning VPNs, then it's only because there is a way to do so now, and the system that detects VPN IPs has opened up a lot of naive board operators' eyes to the fact that VPNs were the problem all along. We could even say that the reaction to VPNs has scaled proportionately to the amount of VPN users, which itself has skyrocketed due to very controlled mainstream influence. Go figure.

Tor exist nodes have long since been publicly listed. I recall 4chan banned them en masse back in 2013 when Tor was just becoming mainstream. Wasn't 8Chan founded by people who were upset with that policy? How did allowing all Tor and VPN users to post indiscriminately work out for them? There is still a way to bypass these bans however. A 4chan Pass
>4chan Pass users may bypass ISP, IP range, and country blocks, but are still subject to the same rules and restrictions as any other user. Pass users cannot bypass individual (regular) IP bans.
>IP range
>cannot bypass individual

It's $20. This is the price of freedom.

>And that was most important than some faux sense of "anonymity" that is just a meaningless sticker on your post.

Important for who though? Banned people and those willing to post something that will get them banned.
>Nobody is asking for the site to have no rules.
But you're advocating for rule breakers to be able to continue to break rules, invalidating those rules completely. Same result, different approach.
>muh muh muh muh muh muh

 No.284135

>>284134
too long, didn't read

 No.284141

>>284132
And they could still do that even if all common proxy services were banned, your logic is retarded. You aren't going to blanket-ban proxies. That's actually fucking impossible. "Bareback" is what I hear used. Get over it.
>>284134
So banning proxies is futile, gotcha.
>How did allowing all Tor and VPN users to post indiscriminately work out for them?
The site was deplatformed for shooter manifestos and nothing more. This has nothing to do with proxies since the people responsible are very well known now. Whether or not they posted their manifestos from a proxy doesn't even matter.
>Important for who though? Banned people and those willing to post something that will get them banned.
>you're advocating for rule breakers to be able to continue to break rules
You keep deflecting to a seldom worst-case. The internet should just be banned because someone might eventually post something illegal, man. Oh, and we should pad all the walls, floors, furniture, tools, anything with a sharp edge, etc. in foam in case someone might get hurt. You aren't going to find a proactive solution that will prevent everything. All it takes is to be a bit more savvy than people whom pay for VPN services. Hell, it's not even hard to IP-hop without proxies (known or otherwise). Bans will always be symbolic and moderators will have to be diligent in removing content that violates rules or law.

 No.284142

>>284141
>And they could still do that even if all common proxy services were banned
Do what? If proxies were banned they couldn't do that at all unless they paid for residentials which are expensive as hell

 No.284143

>>284142
I am certain whatever proxy blacklist they have here isn't comprehensive. Furthermore, it's impossible to future-proof or to proof against personally-owned proxies.

 No.284145

>>284134
>No, the ability to look up if an IP is owned by a VPN service is what's new.
If it was technology or a change in attitude of the moderation in imageboards doesn't matter. Either way is the same: these types of aggressive, massive bans weren't so frequent in the past. So, again, take your bullshitting elsewhere.

>Wasn't 8Chan founded by people who were upset with that policy?

Which proves that such things were looked with disgust.
>How did allowing all Tor and VPN users to post indiscriminately work out for them?
If moderators, jannies and admins don't want to provide an actual anonymous imageboard because they're too lazy to look for a solution then say it. There's no problem. You put your massive gigabans and that's all. But stop bullshitting. Stop telling people that this is the "same as always", or that these are the same imageboards of years ago. Instead of what really is: another type of controlled social media.
>buy 4chan pass
Yeah, supporting a site that doesn't even care about you is stupid and pathetic.

>Important for who though? Banned people and those willing to post something that will get them banned.

Oh, you're so smart. Since bad people can do bad things, we should give all our privacy and freedom to you, who never never would do something bad. So you can babysit us. You hear that guys? This guy is going to save us, just like in social media. I clap in tears right now in front of the screen, you have opened my eyes finally.

 No.284147

I love how people talk about sites being banned for CP and shooter manifestors in the same breath as saying it's ok to let users use their home IP on such a taboo site

 No.284148

File: 1644518470017.png (339.7 KB, 499x583, 499:583, 87f.png) ImgOps iqdb

Just give us your home IP, goy. You have nothing to fear.

We promise.

 No.284150

>>284145
>give all our privacy and freedom to you,
This is the root of your delusions. The internet was never meant to be free and private. None of that was ever promised, offered, or even hinted at as possible by the ISPs whose service you pay for. Whenever you connect to the internet willingly, you are signing off your privacy and agreeing to abide by its rules.

Now you can try to sneak around and obfuscate your outgoing and incoming signals by running them through either your own special hardware - also connected to these ISPs likely with your dox on file - or through paying to use someone else's hardware, who also keeps your info on file. You may be able to make it hard for neckbeard jannies to see your ban history on their basket weaving forum, but you'll never escape the gaze of big brother nor the limitations they impose on your traffic in the name of public safety.

No rights of yours are being stripped, no freedoms suppressed. If you believe you have a right to be so free to do as you please, then the staff of the private sites you use also have their own freedom to enforce their own rules. Don't like it, don't use it. You can suggest changes all you want, but don't expect people not to laugh as soon as you start whining about rights you never had being stripped. You've yet to even define what these 'freedoms" of yours are. Please explain what you should to be "free" to do on private forums.

 No.284151

>>284150
I trust my ISP more than I trust you.
>Don't like it, don't use it.
Keep acting on this attitude and you're going to kill this site.

 No.284154

>>284039
Sorry but I don't understand in what world a 6 month ban is a suitable punishment for CP. That should be an instant permaban.
Other than that I'd like to add that, as a VPN user, I like the current rule where I can freely post text but I'm not allowed to post images while using a VPN. It makes sense and doesn't infringe on my ability to discuss with users, whilst also respecting my decision to use a VPN.

 No.284155

>>284154
True permabans are not good on sites that allow Tor or other proxy services (it might not matter much here or for the hypothetical board in question). Eventually someone different will use the same IPs.

 No.284156

>>284150
The only one who is delusional here is you. Jannies are not the government, nor the Internet provider, nor some sort of entity of good doing righteous work. Not because these people over there strip you of your freedom or privacy means that jannies are, magically entitled to doing the same without people calling them out.

>Wwell, don't use it then!

Lol, you should have started here and just stop pretending. But you're mistaken, like it was posted before, if admins and jannies want to put their massive gigabans, they can do it freely. In any imageboard, not just this one. There is no problem with that. Again, just don't expect people to don't call bullshit when they see it. Just like now.

>>284151
>Keep acting on this attitude and you're going to kill this site.
Is already a lost battle. Most imageboards have this pathetic mentality. Maybe they really believe that people are not going to leave just because.

 No.284157

>>284156
You've still yet to define what these "freedoms" of yours are. If you're so passionate about having them, at least try to describe them.

 No.284159

you implement account registration and hidden usernames. to everyday users they are still anonymous to each other however

when a new post is made by anyone:
-users can vote for or against new posts
-a member of the staff makes the final say on a post
-users who voted the same way as staff gain +1 reputation
-users who voted against what staff decided lose 1 reputation
-if staff doesn't do anything regarding the post within 30 days it is regarded as OK, and every user who voted it as OK gain reputation

reputation is visible only to staff

there must be a minumum post:reputation ratio to gain more reputation (ie. you cannot have a bot that simply votes OK on everything to farm reputation. it must make posts as well, which potentially exposes it)

post must be surpass a minimum character count in order to count toward the post:reputation ratio

after a certain reputation (for example 100) users become trusted which gives them magic powers

magic users can use spells like
-muting individual posts by other users
-muting the image posted by another user
-muting other users

these mutes are temporary and can be reversed by the highest reputation users and/or staff

magic users with the highest reputation can do stuff like
-lock down the entire site temporarily
-block all newly registered users from being able to do anything temporarily
-block all users below a certain reputation from doing anything temporarily

when a member of staff affirms an action taken by a reputation user (muting, blocking, etc), that user gains experience. if their actions is rejected, they lose experience and reputation

when it comes time to find new staff members, user experience is used to gauge their ability to moderate

if a member of staff doesn't logon within x days, they are listed as inactive and demoted and the highest experienced reputation user is promote to staff

staff have all the typical moderation powers



this is my idea for an imageboard that could moderate itself and could survive even the death of its rulers. as long as 1 member of staff is active to affirm votes/actions by other users, they can gain reputation and new members of staff will be assigned

the handle stuff like server hosting, implement a payment system which will let users buy cosmetic posts, like borders and glowing effects and scrolling text and temporary site-wide word filters. the proceeds from all of this feed into an account which pays for the server hosting so anyone can technically prevent the site from expiring even if the admin died, they just have to buy stuff which will tp up the account

 No.284160

>>284159
sounds gay as fuck

 No.284162

>>284160
unconstructive criticism

 No.284165

>>284156
> Jannies are not the government, nor the Internet provider, nor some sort of entity of good doing righteous work.
No, of course not. They're privately entrusted entities operating on private property. You want some private property of your own, pay for it. You want to stand on public property, then the first step is to get off of other people's doors. You think when private property gets too big it needs to be turned into a public utility, then hold up a damn cardboard sign when you're out in public.

 No.284170

>>284165
lmao what are you on about? No one ITT has advocated for wizchan to be seized by the government.

 No.284171

>>284159
So reddit.
Hard no from me.

 No.284174

>>284165
It's not about upholding free speech, but what westerners expect out of imageboards. Who knows; probably few will stop using the site from heavier moderation and eroded user-sanctity, but "muh private ownership" isn't exactly a compelling argument considering many people using imageboards now are doing so because media moguls have always been worse. I still don't get why anyone should advocate that any layer that the user can utilize to protect themselves should be dissolved.

 No.284175

>>284174
>what westerners expect
The same westerners whose expectations were built by clips of exploding vans in news segments, which expectations also include the idea that 4chan is part of the darkweb and/or in any meaningful way darker, edgier or more violent than reddit?

 No.284178

>>284175
Sounds like a flimsy strawman. To elaborate, you're using a mainstream portrayal of everything. Should I have used more specific terminology? I don't think so personally, but maybe so you couldn't try including the millions of dumbasses that have never accessed this site or any others remotely similar to it.

 No.284193


>>284154
Because the IP could be shared by different people, or rotated to new people who gained the IP. Known nondomestic and publically accessible IPs are more selectable for permabans.

 No.284195

>>284159
Wonderful post. I love the attention to structure and detail. I'll have to make considerations on how effective and seamless the concepts are in relation to themselves and loopholers. Overall it sounds good anon.

I have another idea, in a worst case situation, the entire site goes into hard lockdown, with the only new IPs allowed being from an approved proxy service(s). This way chud sperging gives the IB finances in an agreed upon revenue with an alliance with the proxy service(s). Regulars with high rep can use their hidden account information from the above anon's concept (or a similar concept that rewards goodposts more generally) to bypass the lockdown from their regular IP. This means that the main contributors and goodposters can continue with barely a hitch, and if chud wants to shitpost, he has to give the IB money, with his shitposts and new IP removed promptly, with the lockdown ending using data on the shortest psychological statistics showing when these people give up raiding.

The hidden account info can also be used, given enough rep, to register a personal proxy, or their new IP, which can bypass a lockdown. Rep given will have to be from legitimate goodposting logged and identifiable by the mod team.

 No.284196

>>284195
Shortest duration based on*

 No.284197

Rep can be based on posts that reflect poster psychology with qualities like virtue, ability to get along (even in pronounced disagreement), competitive and aggressive posting that is still able to meet opposition halfway and that still has a legit point, ability to make useful posts, low rep rewards for behavior that makes shitposts or ventingposts in designated containment areas, and high rep rewards for insightful posts that reflect deep reading, learning, and thinking. Among other types.

 No.284198

>>284195
Worst case situation would be like when a shitposter(s) is shitposting a (coordinated) shithurricane, making regular modship ineffective, or when a mod skeleton crew cannot keep up with high frequency shitposting.

>>284159
I think soft jannies should be limited to soft mutes like spoilering illicit images, or soft muting messages, meaning users can still open and close them if desired. Harder methods should be left to mods and jans.

 No.284199

>>284195
I just realized a major flaw with this. Any nonregistered goodposter can still register under lockdown, if they use a regular IP where they've left a consistent trace of goodposts that sum to a sufficient rep.

 No.284200

>>284159
Good post. I like the way you write, too. The cosmetic shop with funds automatically paying for hosting is a neat idea too; the cosmetics you mentioned remind me of old chatrooms like XAT.

One potential flaw I noticed is how somebody who is dedicated enough to trolling could work their way up the ranks and become a moderator. Once someone is a janny, how can they be demoted/replaced other than being inactive? You could end up with the site being moderated by trolls.

 No.284201

>>284159
Quite possibly the best post I've read on wizchan in ages. This should definitely be implemented.

 No.284202

heh, remember wizbux?

 No.284207


 No.284239

>>284159
then go make that somewhere else. this is wizCHAN and that has nothing to do with chan culture.

 No.284257

Scary how wizchan users don't mind having all their posts archived, an identifying profile built for them and tracking cookies just recently put in place.

Yes, the admin is "working" on the site. Do you really think some Israeli intelligence agency wouldn't fork up a few hundred bucks to buy an obscure chan?

The admins and moderators have the seem to not care about privacy at all then try to gaslight the userbase into thinking that's totally normal and not at all intrusive or dangerous.

Remember, ALL the posts you've ever made on this site have been archived, meaning they can go back 8 years of your posting history.

Just by this fact alone, they could tie together all the stupid shit you've said, forward it to the police, then you could probably be arrested.

It doesn't really matter if you said it 8 years ago. What matters is you said it. That will forever be tied to you.

Now, the staff will pretend that it doesn't matter or that wizchan would be ruined if they didn't "archive everything you've ever said for the last 10 years", but we all know that's bullshit.

They don't care about your privacy, "the right to be forgotten" laws in the EU or your safety. It's actually very telling.

That's why I don't come to this site unless I'm behind 7 proxies.

 No.284258

>>284257
Why would anyone care? The so called wizards here would kill themselves by 50 anyway

 No.284259

>>284257
> tracking cookies just recently put in place.
It’s been like 5 years and you’re still upset that wizchan leaves a cookie in your browser to store settings, get over it or turn cookies off

 No.284260

>>284239
it's really not that different from mods/janitors. even the implementation of anonymous usernames, since wizchan has posting histories basd on ip and the mods here have private usernames. you can boil it down to an automated system for giving janitor powers and promoting janitors to mods based on a reputation/experience system that lets regular posters and power users 'defend' their boards against invaders, bots, and mod and admin inactivity

i have no desire to code for web and server shit, i dont like databases and javascript and i dont know php

 No.284784

I thought of another potential semi proactive mod policy. Posters too pussy to be bannable, but constantly tread the line of poor shitposting, are forced to namefag/hashfag so they're at least filterable. At least unless they can make their (hodden, lest we truly betray the spirit of anon posting) social credit goes up.

 No.284785

>>284784
>Name and shame people the mods personally don't like even if they don't actually break the rules
I'm sure such a thing couldn't be abused or misused.

 No.284787

>>284785
All societies are ran by gatekeepers. Ordinary ban systems aren't free of abuse either.

 No.284789

>>284784
Good luck I'm behind 7 proxies.

 No.284792

>>284787
Still seems like a bad idea without a upside from the perspective of a user.

 No.284796

>>284792
The upside is they can still post, but now people can filter their tag. It's still more ethical than a shadowban, or full ban.

 No.284799

>>284796
It is just a way for mods to pick on someone in particular who isn't breaking rules.

Ether go full namefag, have post id per a thread, or don't have namefagging at all
If you open the door to subjective enforcement of non-rules it will be exclusively abused.

 No.287120

>>284039
Algebra or other difficult filtering captchas for anons flagged as low quality.

 No.287124

Truly low effort regulars who aren't bad enough for a ban should be post rate limited by IP, or have the IP be given a more permanently identifiable tag to make them more filterable.

Good generals and threads should be given special status and protected from crawl, slide, and low quality parasitic bleeding. Maybe strong quality accounts should be able to have them voted into status with a target number by other anons. This would be better than jannies constantly attending. This status should be a tier below mod pinned posts.

 No.291229

Additionally, the max number of threads per day per IP should be tied to PPH. Higher PPH, higher thread max. Very high PPH allows high threads per hour.

This prevents malicious slide spam.

 No.291232

>>291229
>what is dynamic ip
Wouldn't work.


[View All]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]