Can you list a single chan that has a "public record" for mod actions?
As it stands, the nature of this site is such that that course of action would only lead to mass disillusionment with the people who actually do post here. You didn't think this through.
4chan has a bans page with a sampling of the bans/warnings given within the past hour. Knowing 4chan I'm sure mods there pull shit to make sure certain posts get hidden but it's something.>>50169>public logs shouldn't be made accessible because it'd make people sad :(
Yeah god forbid people get fed up with moderation after seeing all the shit they pull and try to set up an alternative, now all of them (magicchan, lizchan, /tower/) are dead. Maybe spend more time thinking yourself boot licker.>>50144
This is a retarded idea because you're trusting the people you want a log of actions from, to keep an accurate log of their own actions, and expose themselves to (more) scrutiny. You want a log because you don't trust them, but you trust them to keep accurate records of what they do?
They could easily tamper with those logs and it'd be hard to nearly impossible for you to tell. Literally just hide bans for certain posts they don't want us to see.
And if you tried to stir up shit on /meta/ they could just slap you with the accusation of "oh he's a ban evader" or "oh he fucked a prostitute" and kick you out. How did they know this? "uuuuuhhhhhhhhh cookies dude lmao!". And that's enough to pacify just about everyone on this website. They've done it multiple times in the past.
Meanwhile they could easily false flag with a steady stream of rule breaking posts - basic things like "damn i wish i could fuck" with outsider meme image attached, crab posts, succubi posts, etc - and just ban those to fill up their logs. Then every tard here who sees the log will just clap because in their view based mods are keeping back "le norman hordes".
While I am all for greater transparency, and have say so many time, I also suspect that some who complain about the mods a lot are chronic shitposters.
That said, I have seen mod abuse first hand so despite the possible ill-intent of OP it really is a issue that needs to be sorted out.
What sort of mod abuse did you see?
I see a lot of people claiming to have witnessed the mods abusing their positions but I have yet to lay eyes on a single piece of physical evidence to backup such claims.
8chan lists all bans and all post deletions, as well as the reason for the ban and the mod who issued the ban or made the deletions. Mods here could be assigned ID numbers instead of names and IPs in the public log could be censored.
It'd be a step in the right direction. Deleting events from the log could easily be proven with a web archive. What would really help is if mods actually took official positions on their own decisions on /meta/ rather than just pretend to be normal users while defending themselves like they do now.
We just had an example come up.>>50136
Person complains that mods censored him even though he didn't break the rules. Do mods explain how he broke the rules? Do mods even bring up the post in question and attempt to justify their actions?>>50141
No, they just levy some ad hominem at the OP, completely ignoring what he brought up, and lock the thread in an attempt to shut down discussion on the matter. That's just one example, not everyone makes a /meta/ thread when this stuff happens to them.
So are you going to start paying the mods to waste their time responding to every /b/tard that cries about his shitpost being removed?
>>50184>We just had an example come up.
That is not physical evidence of mod abuse that's just someone crying about his post being removed.
Are you saying that you think that his post wasn't censored and that he was lying about it for some reason? So why did the mod respond?
Why would I believe a shitposter who feels the need to make a meta thread over a single post being taken down over a mod?
Why did the mod respond the way he did when he could've just revealed that the OP was lying?
What the hell do you mean by "reveal"? do you want them to reveal his entire post history to the entire website? He literally made a one word post that was deemed to be a rule 5 break and it was taken down.
What kind of sick game are you playing here?
>>50190>He literally made a one word post that was deemed to be a rule 5 break and it was taken down.
So you are a mod then. He didn't say that in his post and the mod replying to him didn't say that. You must be a mod.
It's hypocritical of you to pretend that simply saying that the OP is lying with your mod tag on is the equivalent of "revealing his entire post history" when you did the equivalent or more by talking about his expired ban history, which was irrelevant for determining whether or not his post broke the rules. It honestly seems like you're trying to purposefully misconstrue what I'm saying.
You obviously have terrible reading comprehension and are just out to get the mod team for hurting your butt previously.
"you can remove the "cute" remark i made but you cant delete my advice reply for no reason"
I have no idea what his "advice" was but I can only assume based on the fact he has "the longest history of bans/warnings out of anyone on the site" that it was equally as terrible as the rest of his posts. There is no good reason for you to be taking the side of the worst poster the site has. You must have some kind of vedeta against staff that is fueling your failed attempt at campaigning for "transparency".
Go ahead and continue to live in your schizophrenic fantasy world where the mods are looking in your webcam and reading your mind with alien technology but just keep in mind that their job is to keep the site clean not wipe the butts of the people who shitpost.
How did you know it was a one-word post? >He literally made a one word post that was deemed to be a rule 5 break and it was taken down.
This reads like you are very sure that it was a one word post and that it was deleted for rule 5. If this really is a wild guess it's hypocritical of you to call me schizophrenic when you are making such baseless assumptions.
Why are mods so afraid to make posts with their mod tag on? Why can't they defend their decisions without resorting to subterfuge like pretending to be a normal user? Or do you expect me to believe that mods completely ignore /meta/, never reading or replying to threads unless they have the desire to make references to a person's irrelevant post history as an excuse to lock a thread, like they did just now? Because of this inability of the moderation to publicly defend themselves the only option is to assume that people who defend the mods here at least have a good chance of being mods themselves. This is easily rectified but the mods are unwilling to fix it.
You yourself have not presented a single good argument against mod transparency, by the way, and your heavy reliance on throwing insults is very evocative of the type of behavior the mods of this site have been exhibiting.
I have no idea what you are even talking about anymore. Its been said a million times already that mods don't like to draw attention to themselves and on a site for reclusive individuals like wizchan that makes perfect sense to me. Feel free to keep making unrealistic demands on /staff/ but just be aware that I highly doubt you will be the driving force in any sort of change with your current attitude and talking points.
>You yourself have not presented a single good argument against mod transparency
The site has been perfectly fine without it since its inception. If we need anything it's stricter adherence to the rules and less forgiveness when it comes to rule breaking in the first place.
If the mods want to live in the shadows they have every right to do so. Unless you start paying the mods for their duty you have absolutely zero say in how or why things get done. Posting isn't a right it's a privilege and far too many people on this board forget that.
Right now it's up to the admin and other mods to keep an eye on one another which I am sure they know and do. I have still not seen a single piece of ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the mods are malicious non-virgins that get their rocks off on stalking users and stealing personal info.
Until I see something undisputable in terms of proof of the mods evil intentions it is not I who has to provide evidence against transparency it's you who need to supply evidence for it.
It's the very simple and almost ubiquitous principle that people are responsible for their actions. As it stands, mods are not held responsible for their actions. Mods are given power, responsibility should come with this power. >mods don't like to draw attention to themselves
They're drawing attention to themselves by doing things like deleting posts that don't break the rules and bringing up users' post history in the public forum when it's irrelevent to the issue being discussed. They have also on multiple occasions put their mod tag on just to express opinions that are wholly separate from the moderation of the site, just to give their opinions an air of authority. If mods moderate fairly, no extra attention will be brought to them. If they moderate unfairly, more attention will be brought to them. This is true regardless of whether or not moderation is transparent; the difference is, with a transparent moderation blame can rightfully be put on the mod who is actually abusing their power and trust in the mods increase drastically since we actually know what they're doing. Under the current paradigm it's impossible to fully the trust the mods since we have no idea what their moderation pattern are actually like, and when we do experience bad moderation we have no idea whether it's an exception or the norm. >Right now it's up to the admin and other mods to keep an eye on one another which I am sure they know and do
How come you're sure that this happens? There is no way to tell if they're all organized in a secret discord or if they're talking about it on /staff/ or if they just have literally zero oversight. Again, you're talking as though you yourself are a mod and your attempt to gloss over the fact that you have knowledge about the OP of the locked thread that only a mod would know further substantiates this.
>>50198>They're drawing attention to themselves by doing things like deleting posts that don't break the rules
Maybe mods should just stop moderating the website at all and lets us sort through piles of shit like we're on 4chan, that sounds nice. I mean, actually, maybe it wouldn't be so bad since no person on this site would ever break the rules and if they did
would never lie and claim they didn't.
transparency in moderation != no moderation
You got your transparency, mod told you the guy is a repeat shitposter who shitposts all the time like he is on /b/ and his most recent posts removed were one in the same. Don't know what more you want, don't think anything else could be said, it was pretty straight forward to me, but you can choose to believe what you want.
>>50201>mods are possible nonvirgins
lmao slap slap
I agree with op the mods should have a public record of what they do.
If you reply to me with a strawman I reply to you with something equally as stupid.
I don't even know what posts the other guy is talking about, I was just pointing out your retarded kneejerk reaction where you immediately threaten people with 'becoming like le evil 4shit' when they're just criticizing moderator actions.
One guy in this thread is butthurt that some shitposter got his shitposts removed for the hundredth time, if he wants some place where only the most retarded and idiotic shitposting is moderated then he should go to 4chan, I don't see a problem with that.
/liz/ is up at .xyz.>>50182
It makes sense for them to do so because the site is like Reddit. The situation is a lot more delicate here. At the end of the day, a rulecuck and a bootlicker are one and the same.
It makes me suspicious when people make the claim that revealing the moderators' actions will somehow cause mass upheaval. It implies that you believe that mods really are abusing their power but that they should be allowed to continue doing so for some reason.
Actually the mod made no reference to the the OP's actual deleted post in his "justification".
>>50211>/liz/ is up at .xyz.
Fuck I can't keep up with this shit anymore.
I can not fathom how someone other then maybe the mods themselves see greater transparency as a problem.
Deleting not rule violating post
Banning users for criticizing moderation
editing of post of other users for their own amusement
Locking threads that are following all the rules then deleting or banning anyone that doubts them.
Then there is the stuff I suspect but don't actually have edvedence of. Like that they tend to misbehave and violate rules with their mod tag off, or that they are highly bias in how they use the rules for certain threads and users that they ether like or dislike, or that they try to use bait tactics and don't care if they ban people who don't violate the rules that get caught in their dumb traps.
They also like to mass delete evidence of their wrong doing, making it difficult to screen cap or gather evidence when they fuck up.
That said, when things get egregious, and I have evidence, I go to the Admin with it rather then kick up a storm here, as all it does is put a target on my back.
The TL;DR is the mods themselves break the rules, they ignore others, and very often act on things that aren't rule violations, all in ways that disrupt discourse which is the opposite of what moderation is for.
none of that is true and you provided zero evidence
what's it like having schizophrenia?
The mods here are awful, and have been for at least the past 3 years. If we had an imageboard that only removed posts that are actually federally illegal in the country that the server is located, then we would have a good chan. But good luck getting moderators that know federal law and aren't just powerhungry retards that take a buck from shadowy sources to mute "opposition".
>>50243>If we had an imageboard that only removed posts that are actually federally illegal in the country that the server is located, then we would have a good chan.
that's so fucking stupid, this wouldn't even be wizardchan at that point
Problem is they're harsh on posts that don't break rules but lax on posts that actually do violate the rules. It's really bizarre. I think it originates from this mindset they have that they need to profile each user and judge whether he's worthy to post freely on wizchan, regardless of virgin status, regardless of whether his post actually breaks the rules, and then they just kind of ignore the rules themselves.
>>50246>Problem is they're harsh on posts that don't break rules but lax on posts that actually do violate the rules.
no they aren't. it's always some shitposter complaining that his dumb posts got removed, never anything serious
I'm pretty sure 95% of the site understands this fact which is why meta threads are the same 5-6 people every time
But there's no way to know that that's the case since there's no transparency.
I lost all trust in the mods and especially the admin who keeps them around. They are lying every time someone makes a meta thread to criticize them in their private chats going "oh another metaburger, cuss this nigger out boys". Send in the squad on them to call them a schizo and a shitposter after they got BTFO in the pol thread or something.
We need mods and admin to be unable to post without mod tag on /meta/. As well as create a page that shows the last 10 deleted messages per board somewhere at the bottom of each board and which mod deleted them. That way we can have actual proof for both sides of the argument.
>>50261>the last 10 deleted messages per board
just have a full permanent log
Why was the thread in question just deleted? You left up other locked threads.
It's the shadowy clique behavior we've come to expect from the mods, hence this thread. If you're on their shitlist they will literally ban you permanently for some bullshit accusations of ban evasion or some other violation they pull out of their asses like >>50173
Here's the thing, if you call out the mods for their bullshit behavior, they will basically stalk your posts, look for you to fuck up even once, and then perma-ban you. This is most prevalent if you go on /b/, where they try to ban you for shitposting even though everyone else shitposts there too.
The faggot calling everyone a "schizo" who points out this behavior can fuck right off as multiple people are reporting the same thing, either we're all wrong or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong?
If anything, I feel like the shithead who write stupid threads on /meta/ like "stupid mod why u delete my posts lmao ??!?!? XDDD i just luv cute bois " is just a false flagger to make the rest of us complaining look bad.
This same complaints have been going on for years now.>>50197>Its been said a million times already that mods don't like to draw attention to themselves and on a site for reclusive individuals like wizchan that makes perfect sense to me
This is some mega bullshit, you sound like a mod yourself doing damage control. Otherwise why else are you defending them so vehemently? There is a /meta/ board for the purpose of communicating with the mods. They will never step foot in a thread that calls them out, but they will answer the multitude of stupid threads of the aforementioned retard "why u ban me moddess?? XDDD" by explaining he is, in fact, a shitposter.
apparently people still havent learned this board is only for keeping the whiners out of the main site. nobody gives are shit about any of u. lmao! thanks for ur wiz feedback, mail it directly to my ass next time.