[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]

/meta/ - site discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Youtube
Password (For post deletion)

Welcome former PULL users!
Click here to start migrating to our sister forum

File: 1450571308672.jpg (350.25 KB, 1024x678, hellweek.jpg)

No. 1904

Hellweek is now over.

Hellweek lasted from Monday, December 21 to Monday, December 28. Dozens of bans were issued.

You can also continue to discuss what you thought of it in this thread.

Things we plan on improving in the future, if we do this again:

  • Making it clear which boards will receive increased moderation, as there was some ambiguity and miscommunication regarding /b/.
  • Responding to reports more quickly. (Though all of them should have been responded to within at most 24 hours.)
  • Possibly providing some kind of public ban board so people can get an idea of what's being moderated.

Reports were very helpful to us. I also created a new mod panel that allowed us to quickly review and dismiss every single post made during hellweek, though this did get a bit backlogged.

The original announcement can be found below.




As discussed in Wednesday's townhall:

From Monday, December 21 to Monday, December 28, lolcow staff will begin an experimental "heavy moderation week". The purpose of this will be to gauge community reaction to moderation actions, and help determine if permanent policy changes should be made. The secondary purpose will be to hopefully encourage people to improve their quality of posts in the long term, without moderators having to step in.

Only posts made during this week will receive extra scrutiny. Posts made before or after hellweek are not eligible to be moderated more harshly than usual.

Since this is just an experiment, all bans issued during hellweek for rules that are not currently listed at https://lolcow.farm/rules will last no longer than 4 days. Most will likely be a lot shorter than 4 days, but that is the maximum.

Heavy moderation will primarily be enforced in /pt/, /snow/, and /g/. /b/ is mostly not receiving any additional scrutiny.

Moderation will be extremely subjective, and in some cases, may even appear arbitrary. I can't really provide a list of specific things we will be targeting, but here are some general ideas for what will likely be focused on:

  • Immaturity
  • Vendettas
  • Giving clear signs that you are new to the Internet, imageboards, or lolcow.farm
  • Blatantly injecting your own agenda into a discussion, especially when apropos of nothing
  • Self-focused or very off-topic derailing
  • Talking about yourself excessively
  • Use or overuse of specific words, phrases, or emotes
  • Unwarranted/emotional overreactions

Of course, this is pretty vague and not helpful, but that's pretty much the best I can do. You all will probably get the idea within the first few days.

Importantly, rules will change a little around samefagging during hellweek. Samefagging may be called out in specific instances. If you suspect it, feel free to report it.

But rules around identity will still exist as they currently are. If you aren't breaking a global rule, staff will never publicly out you or identify you in any way. If you're samefagging in a thread about someone you know, you may be banned and/or called out for samefagging or having a vendetta, but nothing about your identity will be revealed. So, vendettas won't be called out in cases where they would blatantly identify the person with the vendetta; that would be a non-public ban instead. It is impossible to call out many kinds of self-posts without outing someone's identity (like a cow complimenting themselves in their own /pt/ thread, for example), so those cases will always be handled privately, without public outing or ban messages. General self-posting will still be called out if it wouldn't reveal details about someone's identity.

People are encouraged to report many more posts than usual during hellweek. However, too many frivolous reports may result in yourself being banned and/or your report being called out, in extreme cases. I'd say for most people, it's fine to report as much as you want without fear of being banned: just don't report someone for arguing with you or insulting you, or something like that. Basically, just don't do this: https://lolcow.farm/pt/res/187661.html#196112

If you have any questions, you can post them in this thread. I may not answer all questions.

No. 1905

Is this going to apply to /b/ too?

No. 1906

>>1905
A little bit, but we will primarily focus on /pt/ and /snow.

No. 1907

If we've acted like obnoxious twats prior to the heavy moderation week, can we expect consequences for that, or is this only going to apply to posts that are actually made between the 21st and 28th?

No. 1908

>>1907
Only posts made during this week will qualify.

I've updated the OP with clarification.

No. 1910

Depends how it's enforced. The problem with "heavy" moderation is that it usually reveals the biases of the mods. Sometimes it's better to have a light touch even if a community strays from the founder's intentions.

I think the current problems with lolcow are a combination of a lack of milk and too many new posters. Reducing the number of posters won't increase the milk but it will increase antagonism.

No. 1911

I think perhaps a poll following the end of hellweek regarding which enforcements the users of the board found to be overall beneficial in its maintenance and procession would be a good idea.

No. 1912

can we rename meta to meat

No. 1913

>>1910
Mod biases will certainly become apparent, yes. We'll just see if those biases conform to how most of the community feels.

We don't really know if this will end up as a good idea or not, which is why it's just for one week. If the experiment doesn't produce good results or feedback, we won't do it again.

>>1911
Yeah, I'll do a poll and feedback thread.

No. 1914

Honestly, you guys mod way too much. The fun thing about an anon image board is that it's fast paced and unorganized fun. Like, if I wanted to go somewhere that always expects quality posting I would go to kiwifarms. Idk, I think lolcow should relax a bit.

No. 1915

>>1914
We usually get the exact opposite complaint. But yes, I of course understand the value of chaotic posting and relaxed moderation. That's why this is only an experiment. Also, "shitposting" itself will not necessarily be banned this week.

No. 1917

what prompted mods and admins to do this?

No. 1918

>>1914
>kiwifarms
>quality posting

u wot m8

No. 1919

File: 1450686491905.gif (419.18 KB, 421x172, hellweek.gif)


No. 1922

I know it's hellweek but I'm one of many that automatically sages all their posts automatically which I'm now being banned for kek

Under what stipulation constitutes appropriate saging and inappropriate saging, especially in the case where you assume all of your own posts are garbage.

No. 1923

>>1917
Probably the insane and rampant shitposting as of lately. I personally welcome this.

No. 1924

Please don't forget to report things to help us out.

No. 1925

>>1922
"sage" is not the same as "Sage". But yes, your post was indeed garbage, which contributed.

No. 1926

I'm seeing that 32 inch waist-chan posts are being handled rather quickly. Thanks. I'm sick of the derailing.

No. 1927

>>1925

Admin-kun in all fairness every post I make is garbage so really I'm only acting appropriately.

No. 1928

>>1923
>>1926
These.

I'm all for strict moderation week. This site feels like it's becoming the new teeny bopper club with all the vendettas, XD, and terrible threads.

No. 1930

File: 1450816948791.png (263.45 KB, 535x479, 1387836871196.png)

As long as you leave /b/ alone

No. 1931

>>1927
You are doing it incorrectly.

No. 1932

>>1931

There is no "correct" standard for saging.
You sage your post when you don't intend nor desire to bump a thread. That's it. That's all.

No. 1933

>>1932
you're not understanding the message

No. 1934

>>1933

Please communicate it to me then because I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to get across to me and why.

No. 1935

>>1934
You're putting Sage in the email field, when it has to be sage. That means you keep bumping threads even when you think you're not. This is also the case for 4chan and all other imageboards.

No. 1936

>>1935

K so at first I was like "pffft k' watever" but I immediately went and tested it and you're right.

I have been using 4chan since 2006.
How in the hell have I managed to miss this.
How.
That's almost a decade of posting.
HOW.

No. 1938

Say goodbye to your Freedom. This is the beginning of the new and castrated 4chan.

No. 1939

File: 1450887548037.gif (343.23 KB, 500x281, tumblr_mofz5daEPJ1qixfalo1_500…)

>>1936
H..holy fuck, same here. Been using 4chan/boards for years and years and I never realized.

My phone autocaps 'sage' in a new field, so every time I've sage posted on mobile I've bumped the thread? Sweet fuck. This is kind of funny in retrospect, though.

Also
>all of those sweet, sweet bans for shit posters
>seeing more get banned for bawwing

Based as fuck. I hope hellweek becomes permanent, the shit people are getting banned for is the kind of crap that makes me stop reading threads. This is great. X-mas came early at lolcow.

No. 1940

>>1938
>4chan
m8…

No. 1941

It doesn't actually feel like hellweek is taking place tbh.

I am still seeing multiple retarded posts which I have tried reporting to no avail, specifically in the attractive white women thread >>>/b/38923 where I'm currently experiencing some ana-chan aping at me for posting a woman they deem obese.

No. 1942

>>1941
Stop responding dumbass.

No. 1943

>>1942

I have but I'm not the only one arguing with them, cunt.

No. 1944

>>1941
>>1943
Admin-kun said /b/ would only get slightly heightened moderation if there was any increase.

No. 1945

mods why am i not banned yet

loljkplzdontbanme(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

No. 1946

>>1941
We're not paying much attention to /b/. I don't care about that thread.

Everyone should continue aggressively reporting non-/b/ posts.

No. 1947

>>1946

>everybody is encouraged to aggressively report posts

>I don't care about that thread

No. 1948

>>1947
>That thread is in /b/.
>"Everyone should continue aggressively reporting non-/b/ posts."

Yes, the suggestion is slightly different from what I said in the thread OP, but it also said we wouldn't be focusing on /b/ very much, or that we may not increase moderation in it at all.

No. 1949

>>1946
I agree with leaving /b/ alone but what defines a non-/b/ post on a board that's all about random shit?

No. 1950

>>1949
Non-/b/ as in not in /b/. Continue reporting posts on other boards.

No. 1951

>>1949
Sorry, maybe the wording was ambiguous.

Continue to aggressively report posts in /pt/, /snow/, and /g/ is what I meant.

No. 1952

Hello Admin and farmhands! And Merry Christmas. (Or Happy Holidays.)

There's something about Hellweek that's been bothering me. I feel like it's not a good representation of what strict moderation would actually be like, because I think everyone is on their best behavior so to speak, and not doing their normal autistic shitposting. Not to say there isn't any autism going on– but I have noticed, especially compared to how it's been in previous weeks/months, that the anachans in particular have quieted down.

My question is, what happens after Hellweek? Will the shit posters be allowed to roam free once more, dragging down threads and throwing out fatty insults?

I just wonder if the threat of being banned has kept people from doing things they would normally do. Which makes it seem like the heavy moderation is working! But what happens after this?

Also, what if, in a bizarre /cgl/ish scenario, the moderation becomes so severe that it's inherently damaging and biased? Will we be able to question bans, or will it just be 4chan 2.0?

Anyway, sorry for the drawn out rambling, I have never been a consice person. Thanks for reading and I hope you have a good day!!

No. 1953

>Giving clear signs that you are new to the Internet, imageboards, or lolcow.farm

What if it's something simple like asking how to attach a video or how to greentext?

No. 1955

>>1953
>clear signs that you are new to the internet and imageboards.

No. 1960

admin-sama ive been a good girl havent i

No. 1961

Can we use hell week to end this Sindy nonsense? It's honestly tiring now

No. 1962

>>1961
We have permabanned Sindy many times and unfortunately she evades her ban every time. We can only really continue to ban her until she gets bored and leaves. We're doing what we can.

No. 1963

File: 1451258454467.jpg (84.11 KB, 755x604, dasdasd.jpg)

>>1946

>we're not paying much attention to /b/

>get banned for insulting some baiting fuck

Once again punishing people that respond to aggressors whilst ignoring the aggressors.

Either you're paying attention /b/ or you're not. You're too busy attacking legitimate users to sort out threads are frequently plagued by shitposters apparently.

Getting really tired of this style of moderation, or lack of.

No. 1964

>>1963


I'm tired of it too, fucking ridiculous.

No. 1965

>>1963
Responding to bait is stupid though, and drags down the thread. I'm sure the person who posted the bait was banned as well, probably much longer than 30 minutes

No. 1966

>>1965

Well we wouldn't know though wouldn't we seeing as apparently shadowbans are now in operation, which is the skeeviest fucking shit ever.

No. 1967

>>1966
How is it skeevy? Besides, it's been stated:

>Giving clear signs that you are new to the Internet, imageboards, or lolcow.farm


Responding to obvious bait falls into that category.

Perhaps the people who are getting repeatedly banned should take a hint.

No. 1968

>>1962

I'm actually quite impressed she's figured out how to ban evade given she's not very bright otherwise. Thanks for trying farmhands/admin-sama

No. 1969

>>1967

If you need an explanation as to why shadowbans are skeevy as fuck then perhaps you're the one that's new to the internet.
Did all that bollocks that went down with Reddit teach you nothing.

No. 1970

>>1969
Please go back to reddit.

No. 1971

>>1969
I'm not sure I understand why people feel we should announce every time we ban someone. That is not something that happens on imageboards, and it has never really been a thing here except in situations where someone is blatantly breaking rules. If you would rather I publicly announce every time I ban you, I will be sure to do that for you.

In the situation here >>1963 both of you and the person posting bait were banned. While we are not heavily moderating /b/, the person posting bait was breaking a rule (spamming blatantly unattractive people in the thread), but you were banned for taking the clear bait.

Consider bans given during this week more like warnings. No one ever promised that "regular posters" would not be caught up in the mix here. That said, you should consider why you are getting multiple bans and correct your behavior.

No. 1972

>>1963
We probably should not have banned for this, since it was /b/, but since it was 30 minutes long you should consider it a warning.

Our inconsistent moderation of /b/ was a result of my miscommunication in this thread and in our staff channel.

>>1966
There are no shadowbans. What are you talking about?

No. 1975

>>1970

I'm not from reddit you idiot.
Have you ever been living under a rock so long you missed that massive drama that went down with the exposure of their moderation tactics, specifically the shadowbanning?

>>1972

Typically when a person is banned a ban message is left on the offending post stipulating their offense.
You're telling me that people are being banned for shiposting and baiting and the like, but how is anybody supposed to even know this and modify their behaviour accordingly when they don't know who's being banned and what they're being banned for.
Like the only reason I'm whining here is because as a user to me appears that I'm the only person being banned for attempting to fight back against the blatant shiposting, whereas the shitposter goes unpunished.

I was under the illusion a shadowban specifically was the act of banning a person without the rest of the community being afforded that knowledge. Maybe I have that terminology wrong.

No. 1976

>>1975
That's definitely not what shadowbanning is. A shadowban is a special ban where no one, not even the ban victim, knows they were banned at all. To them, their posts all still show up when they make them, but no one else ever sees the posts. It's a much more insidious kind of ban, kind of like a solipsistic ban where no one else knows they even exist. That's what Reddit admins got flak for.

A ban without a public ban message is just a private/silent ban. A ban message should still be visible for the banned person when they try to make a new post. Though I think there may be a bug where the message sometimes doesn't show up if the ban has already expired.

Bans without public ban messages are used on pretty much every website, and are perfectly valid.

>Like the only reason I'm whining here is because as a user to me appears that I'm the only person being banned for attempting to fight back against the blatant shitposting, whereas the shitposter goes unpunished.

I personally find people who overreact to a shitpost sometimes more annoying than shitposters themselves, depending on context. The "serious" nature of your response in >>>/b/54559 to blatantly obvious trolling is certainly "hellweek ban-worthy", in my opinion, but the ban is also completely inconsistent with what I said earlier about us ignoring /b/ and that thread in particular, so I apologize for it.

If we ever do something like this again, I will give much clearer rules about what boards will receive increased moderation.

No. 1977

Also want to add that despite my bitching I'm still actually very appreciative that the moderation team here sites legitimately take suggestions and criticism on board and considers them accordingly.

No. 1978

>>1976

Thanks Admin and sorry for being a little bitch.
I keep forgetting it's hellweek actually.

No. 1982

Shit, it's Monday now.

Noticeable lack of ana chans on the anacow threads. That's the only real difference I've noticed in behaviour tbh.

No. 1985

Please take this survey when you get a chance: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F3NSRQC

No. 1986

>What did you like about hellweek?
Sassy Admin.
I really hope you guys do another hellweek.

No. 1987

Whew. I didn't read here before taking the survey and mentioned Sindy still posting as part of my 'didn't like' in hell week. Apologies Admin&team, realize you can't do much if she's ban evading.

That said, so far everything seems justifiable to me. The few bans people are complaining about receiving seem warranted, in my opinion, hellweek or not.

It's not like /b/ or /g/ should have zero moderation. I've completely quit visiting these boards because /b/ feels like r9k and /g/ is usually full of what I imagine to be emotional underageb&.

Maybe I'm just jaded.

I'm all for extra, heaping helpings of hell week, though!

No. 1988

>>1987

– I do want to tack on that it might not be a bad idea to have all bans/warnings public during hell weeks (if we are gifted more). It would better display what 'isn't allowed' to lurkers, and allow the general user base to discuss what's going on.

For example, I saw a few posts of 'but this girl is cute xD o.o" which, in my opinion, should receive a warning (unless blatant sarcasm is in play). It's possible that those posts DID receive a warning, but because it wasn't public, I and others are under the impression it's permissible behavior (leading to more of it by lurking newfags).

I think that's more or less already been touched on in this thread, I just wanted to voice my vote on implementating public bans/warnings.

No. 1990

Hellweek was pretty okay. It definitely felt like there was less derailment posts in /pt/ and /snow/ overall.

No. 1991

Definitely think stricter moderation of derailment (and anachans by proxy) should remain. I think derailment is the worst part of /pt/ at this point. And they are absolutely unstoppable. Even when farmhands step in they'll still go on. I think with the threat of bans/stricter moderation the derailment problem would lessen.

No. 1992

>>1987
She's been permabanned like 4 times. There are ways to do more complex bans, but it takes a lot of work.

>>1988
All of these resulted in temporary bans.


There have been 63 survey responses so far. I'd say the majority have a positive opinion of hellweek, though some have very negative opinions. Some people's biggest dislike was my posts outside of /meta/, while some listed that as their biggest like. Many, but not all, of the negative opinions appear to center around my posts in the Berry thread.

The sample size is still fairly low, though. I'll provide a more complete analysis in a week or two.

No. 1993

>>1992
Thank you, Admin.

No. 1994

There were some reports for posts like these:

>>>/snow/75771

This would be bannable during hellweek, but there is currently no rule against dumb posts like those, so please don't report them anymore.

However, there is an existing rule against self-posting and weight derailment, especially weight-related self-posting (see >>1359 and below rules), so please continue to report posts like >>>/snow/75883 and >>>/snow/76010.

No. 1996

>>1992
Sindy must be one if those chavs who keep buying new sim cards to top up. She can barely type so how in hell does she figure a way around the bans?

Meh, just keep kicking her off when she appears.

I did the survey. I was neutral about most of it, but I'd like hellweek again when more anons are active. Might be wrong, but it seemed quieter here probably because it's Christmas holidays?

No. 2001

>>1999
>>2000
You are certainly in the wrong thread.

No. 2002

I think my survey answers were sent in, but I'm not sure.

On the whole, Hellweek wasn't bad and I didn't even notice moderation to be that strict in general. I hope there will be another town meeting soon. Thanks for not abandoning the site yet, admin!

No. 2010

I think all of the shitposting Anas are crawling out of the woodwork now that Hellweek is over.

No. 2012

>>1996
>it seemed quieter here probably because it's Christmas holidays?

I've noticed that too but I also wonder if it's just because people were getting banned/not shitposting as often?

No. 2013

>>1904

just wondering in the last townhall there was slight discussion over a new trial board "manure", is this still happening?

No. 2018

>>1953
I don't think new people should be discouraged. How is this place supposed to remain active and interesting if the same stale old people post over and over? I know it can be annoying "training" someone new, but after a while they aren't new anymore and sometimes become a valuable part of the culture.

No. 2019

>>2013
This will still happen. Though as I said at the time, it would be a few weeks before I open it.

No. 2024

>>2018
The problem isn't necessarily new people, it's when they don't feel intimidated by posting shit that reveals they're new. people get away with posting in tumblr speak and all kinds of shit that should be unacceptable. The general quality of the board is improved when people feel that they actually need to think before posting.

No. 2025

>>2019
>>2013

I missed the town hall the other night, but what were the details surrounding the concept of this new board?

No. 2026

I like that the mods are helping out in trying to bring some slack order.

That's the best way to describe it really, I felt they were lax but helpful.

No. 2057

I want to say that I love the way of exposing and publicly shaming those who break the rules and reveal all their samefagging posts in a thread, plus the forced identifying. It's probably the best and most effective way to punish someone.

No. 2064

>>2024
So what about a newb making a thread on how happy they are to have found this site? We were all new once and I think it's a tad unfair to target them so much when they're hardly numerous.

No. 2065

>>1988
You assume all "teehee she's cute all you jelly chans"is done in earnest but I and probably many others do it to troll. Nothing funnier than seeing anons falling over themselves frothing at the mouth to tell me why berry isn't cute.

No. 2119

>>1936
>>1939
Holy shit my sides

No. 2150

Hellweek needs to come back.

No. 2178

We need another Hellweek. PLEASE.

No. 3337

.



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]