Meta What the fuck is this?

[DOLL (75%)]

View attachment 38484

If you need a pseudo-discord to enjoy a forum then you are not the target audience. Ten seconds ago there was a big upheaval over instagram, 2 minutes ago there was an outcry against the local voice chat being hosted here where csam was being posted, an hour ago there was urgentcord. Its not intended use of the site and I am not allowing off-site communities to find their way onto the site via these quasi-grey areas. These groups are not sufficiently moderated even by their own participants and so they are not welcome on the site.

 

[Oot]

If you need a pseudo-discord to enjoy a forum then you are not the target audience. Ten seconds ago there was a big upheaval over instagram, 2 minutes ago there was an outcry against the local voice chat being hosted here where csam was being posted, an hour ago there was urgentcord. Its not intended use of the site and I am not allowing off-site communities to find their way onto the site via these quasi-grey areas. These groups are not sufficiently moderated even by their own participants and so they are not welcome on the site.

Meanwhile in the Frootcord...

 

[Margestone]

If you need a pseudo-discord to enjoy a forum then you are not the target audience. Ten seconds ago there was a big upheaval over instagram, 2 minutes ago there was an outcry against the local voice chat being hosted here where csam was being posted, an hour ago there was urgentcord. Its not intended use of the site and I am not allowing off-site communities to find their way onto the site via these quasi-grey areas. These groups are not sufficiently moderated even by their own participants and so they are not welcome on the site.

Nigger why did you let people make more than 3? Also didn’t you violate your own rule with the dnd conversation?

 

[Margestone]

Fuck you, you dumbasses.

 

[mishа]

I got told via a report that there were conversations with more than 3 people (bad bad no no from earlier schlog days)

dollcord, what's our response?

 

[DOLL (75%)]

Nigger why did you let people make more than 3? Also didn’t you violate your own rule with the dnd conversation?

I said at the beginning this wasn't tolerated and I was told it got taken care of, then today I get told its still here. If you think me inviting (and moderating) 7 people to start a DND group versus an unmoderated 50+ person group where we are getting reports of banned content from, you might have to consider that you are retarded in some capacity.

 

[Chairman]

Intentionally evading janny to post in a secret club with just you and your best buddies is not the intended use of a forum

 

[Margestone]

I said at the beginning this wasn't tolerated and I was told it got taken care of, then today I get told its still here. If you think me inviting (and moderating) 7 people to start a DND group versus an unmoderated 50+ person group where we are getting reports of banned content from, you might have to consider that you are retarded in some capacity. Thats just me saying that though. No respect for guest posters.

>well well uh.. it’s fine because it’s not that many….
Holy retard.

 

[Mist]

Somehow, some of the staff didn't know that a conversation user-limit wasn't still enabled (I'm not sure when it was disabled, either), so, as far as I'm aware, the decision the administration has made is to try and close down all of the ones that don't fit that three-or-below user criteria. I'm not sure why we're issuing bans for it, albeit, when the rules have never said "don't create conversations with more than three people".

I can understand the worry since it is somewhat private but there was already a janitor in there and as far as i know and noticed there wasn't any banned content in there or anything, i don't understand but i am not the one to change much and don't care to argue about this issue so much, i am still a bit new to the blog haha. I just enjoyed the place and well maybe it is too harsh of a punishment?

In a way i just liked the idea, i didn't expect being invited to something like this and didn't even know what the place was about but there wasn't anything bad in there. Like a private forum thread or something, maybe a good compromise with the users would be just inviting 1 or 2 jannies to be there? I am not sure.

 

[Stephen]

These groups are not sufficiently moderated even by their own participants and so they are not welcome on the site.

I recall that we discussed during the original urgentcord that we were not hostile offsiters because the mods here likely had access to the chat and reports themselves, meaning we could be moderated by friendly individuals. It's fun getting the notifs constantly and talking to people more directly, like the shoutbox but less out of the way. The other services had no way for our mods to janny our behavior, might as well ban people who joined the schlog cs:s server where we could talk without jannies

 

[Oot]

I recall that we discussed during the original urgentcord that we were not hostile offsiters because the mods here likely had access to the chat and reports themselves, meaning we could be moderated by friendly individuals. It's fun getting the notifs constantly and talking to people more directly, like the shoutbox but less out of the way. The other services had no way for our mods to janny our behavior, might as well ban people who joined the schlog cs:s server where we could talk without jannies

We can't see convos we're not invited to, only admins can

 

[Chairman]

>well well uh.. it’s fine because it’s not that many….
Holy retard.

I recall that we discussed during the original urgentcord that we were not hostile offsiters because the mods here likely had access to the chat and reports themselves, meaning we could be moderated by friendly individuals. It's fun getting the notifs constantly and talking to people more directly, like the shoutbox but less out of the way. The other services had no way for our mods to janny our behavior, might as well ban people who joined the schlog cs:s server where we could talk without jannies

 

[Stephen]

We can't see convos we're not invited to, only admins can

We didnt know that, but looking back weebhunter was more active at the time, plus baqqrih was in the original and now he's mod

 

[Mist]

I recall that we discussed during the original urgentcord that we were not hostile offsiters because the mods here likely had access to the chat and reports themselves, meaning we could be moderated by friendly individuals. It's fun getting the notifs constantly and talking to people more directly, like the shoutbox but less out of the way. The other services had no way for our mods to janny our behavior, might as well ban people who joined the schlog cs:s server where we could talk without jannies

I mean the discussions that were in there didn't seem like anything i'd see in a "HOSTILE OFFSITE COMMUNITY!!!" it was just chill. I agree it is more fun to get those notifs and talk to people more directly. And i can understand why users are a tad bit mad about this.

 

[Stephen]

I mean the discussions that were in there didn't seem like anything i'd see in a "HOSTILE OFFSITE COMMUNITY!!!" it was just chill. I agree it is more fun to get those notifs and talk to people more directly. And i can understand why users are a tad bit mad about this.

True it was fun, plus no images means you gotta talk to people
Reinstate notifs for the shoutbox btw froot

 

[DOLL (75%)]

In a way i just liked the idea, i didn't expect being invited to something like this and didn't even know what the place was about but there wasn't anything bad in there. Like a private forum thread or something, maybe a good compromise with the users would be just inviting 1 or 2 jannies to be there? I am not sure.

There weren't any jannies there. Which is why we got reports and then it was discovered in the first place. If its a difficult issue to solve on Xenforo then we will move to vBulletin and this issue will die on the vine.

I recall that we discussed during the original urgentcord that we were not hostile offsiters because the mods here likely had access to the chat and reports themselves, meaning we could be moderated by friendly individuals.

That is not the case with Xenforo conversations. It requires admin access and it is a tedious process to sort through these conversations. Context is also difficult to attain so if you make a dumb joke and someone takes it literally and sends in a report, mods can't see the context and would be banning for something that is typically permitted. There is work to be done on the mod team as you can see via this thread and the bans, and so more context trains better staff.

If they were actually moderated by the users and staff were easily able to view these conversations and their content then this wouldn't be an issue.