[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 2hu / asmr / egy / f / fit / hypno / newbrit / vore ]

/svtfoe/ - Star vs. the Forces of Evil

Because /co/ hates us and /trash/ is furries

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Vote on whether /svtfoe/ should have thread-specific IDs

File: 1f071c1defd2915⋯.png (143.97 KB, 900x638, 450:319, 1488010645722.png)

d02c19 No.69

Use this thread for discussion about what the rules of this board should be.

a3c0a7 No.70

Keep everything star vs related, especially no real life politics. Nobody is going to care if you call marco a spic, but that doesn't mean you can use this board to talk about immigration policies. I think that's a very fair rule.


d02c19 No.72

>>70

Agreed. Keep posts related to SvtFoE, and avoid real-life politics unless it somehow affects the show (e.g. legislation that affects the show, or censorship in certain countries).

I'm generally fine with SvtFoE-related pics or statements that are political in nature (e.g. Hitler Star, SvtFoE greentexts with political references). But don't spam these posts in threads that don't want it.

With our own board, discussion isn't forced into a single thread anymore. We have 25 pages, with 15 threads per page for 375 threads total. We can afford to separate discussion when needed into different threads.

If you're posting something so much that it could be considered spam, odds are it's enough content to be in it's own thread. And if you're drowning out the original discussion of the thread you were posting in with something no one else really wants to discuss, it should be in it's own thread.


a35a43 No.75

I think that a light hand should be applied to the moderation, especially seeing as the main problem with /co/ was the mods.

More importantly though, the chief danger is that the board might not get enough traffic to be self-sustaining. Even completely off-topic posts will contribute to board traffic: all we need to do is ask people to move to a new thread if it feels disruptive, which is something they're likely to do on their own anyways.

I see only two or three categories that really need moderation: namely spoilers and lewds (with fetish stuff like "slave monstar" either its own category, or included under lewds).

Setting up a spoiler policy is pretty easy. Just pick a number of hours/days after an episode airs, and anyone who speaks of its content outside spoiler tags gets banned until a day after the "protection period" ends.

For other images, it'll be harder. We should try to encourage an "if in doubt, spoiler or link" philosophy, without being too heavy-handed about it. It might be best to judge at first on a case-by-case basis, then later by precedence.


d02c19 No.84

>>75

>I think that a light hand should be applied to the moderation, especially seeing as the main problem with /co/ was the mods.

Moderation should indeed be light. There won't be a rule like 4chan's global rule 8, which disallows complaining about moderation. You can voice your complaints as you please, and we'll try to be helpful in our responses.

Also to be clear, bans will be issued rarely.

1) Permabans will only go to (a) those that upload or link to child pornography, and (b) bot posts/actual spammers who post affiliate/malware links. (If you've found SvtFoE content that's behind an affiliate link, it's okay to post it, but make it clear what you're posting a link to.)

2) Temporary bans will go for people who very consistently and persistently disregard the rules. And even then, it'll start out small (e.g. two days), getting a bit bigger the more they repeat the same behavior.

We'll always favor post edits/deletions/warnings over bans where possible.

E.g. if someone forgets to spoiler something for a few posts in a thread, we'll spoiler it for them.

>More importantly though, the chief danger is that the board might not get enough traffic to be self-sustaining. Even completely off-topic posts will contribute to board traffic: all we need to do is ask people to move to a new thread if it feels disruptive, which is something they're likely to do on their own anyways.

The large majority of off-topic posts will be untouched. The only times where we would intervene are when many people have repeatedly told a particular poster to move to another thread, and they don't. They would also have to be making a lot of posts in the thread, enough to disrupt whatever discussion was ongoing in that thread (e.g. we wouldn't touch "CUTE AND PERFECT" posts, since it's just one or two posts at most).

Also the notion that a thread has a fixed and single topic determined by the OP is often an over-simplification. Usually there are multiple topics ongoing in a thread, and they change over the course of the thread, e.g. because people get bored or their attention shifts.

So if someone said "post X" in the middle a thread, and different people started replying to him, it would likely be okay. That's just what some of the people of the thread decided to shift topics toward.

If there's a single person who starts image-dumping in the middle of a thread, and everyone else repeatedly tells them to move to another thread but he doesn't, that would be an example of when we would intervene. In a sense, they're trying to force the discussion in a particular direction the thread doesn't want to go via flooding.

>I see only two or three categories that really need moderation: namely spoilers and lewds (with fetish stuff like "slave monstar" either its own category, or included under lewds).

>For other images, it'll be harder. We should try to encourage an "if in doubt, spoiler or link" philosophy, without being too heavy-handed about it. It might be best to judge at first on a case-by-case basis, then later by precedence.

With regards to lewds, it's a bit tricky. I'll make a longer post about this in a bit.

>Setting up a spoiler policy is pretty easy. Just pick a number of hours/days after an episode airs, and anyone who speaks of its content outside spoiler tags gets banned until a day after the "protection period" ends.

I'd probably say that content should be spoilered until 24 hours after it has become publicly available, either via leak sites/download links or the episode airing on TV. That way people only have to check the board once a day to not get spoiled.

If people forget to spoiler text, we'll edit their posts to spoiler appropriately, and remind people in the thread of the spoiler policy (e.g. by making a capcode post, or editing the OP to include a reminder if a lot of people are doing it). Individuals who make many posts unspoilered after this may have their posts deleted, and receive a warning. If they still completely disregard the spoiler policy after that, they could get a temp ban for a day.

Really 8ch needs a functionality so that the OP can mark the entire thread as a spoiler (so people who don't want to type spoiler tags every post don't have to), but that doesn't exist yet.

I'll also likely put the time period (24 hours) up to a vote, as I'm not certain what people prefer.


a35a43 No.102

Thread was broken and 404'ing, but the 404 page had instructions to fix broken threads, involving using a generic mod account to make a post in said thread. So, that's what I'm doing.


a35a43 No.103

>>102

I think it worked!

>>84

>Temporary bans will go for people who very consistently and persistently disregard the rules.

I think the banning threshold needs to be tighter than that, at least in cases where the rules are very clear and the violator should know he did something wrong. (e.g. spoilers)

To give an example, I played SS13 on the /v/-run server for a while. In the game there's an OOC chat channel, and of course it's forbidden to speak of anything in-game in that channel. When I first joined, I would sometimes type into the wrong channel by accident. However, since there was a zero-tolerance policy on that, the tempbans I got each time made me quickly learn my lesson. I was definitely mad at first, but by the time they expired, I had cooled my head and seen the logic behind it.

On something like spoilers, if you don't have similar draconian enforcement, then accidents (both real and fake) WILL occur, and with frequency.

The ban doesn't have to be long, though; just long enough for the violator to feel a penalty. Can you do bans for less than a day? 2-6 hours would be sufficient for a first offense.

>The large majority of off-topic posts will be untouched. The only times where we would intervene are when many people have repeatedly told a particular poster to move to another thread, and they don't.

Sounds good, although I don't know how much we should rely on other users; it could hamstring the mod if nobody calls them out on it first.

How about…

>First offense: Warning, posts may be deleted

>Repeated offense after warning (from mod or other users): Ban

In other words, give the mod some flexibility to act immediately if something egregious happens.

>24 hours after it has become publicly available, either via leak sites/download links or the episode airing on TV

It should be set off TV airdate only. We shouldn't expect *everyone* to know it if a leak happens a day in advance. The airdate is the only common reference we can reasonably blame someone for not checking.

We can make special exceptions if the online leak happens unusually late or early.


941bf5 No.106

>>75

>>84

I agree that moderation should be light, but rule 1 needs to state that everything must be star vs related.


a35a43 No.115

So, something that came up on the other thread.

>>114

>And lastly, though I hesitate to say it out loud… I think that we should take the opportunity establish these earliest of contributors as the equivalent of Janitors. But instead of using that name for them, how about calling it the "/svtfoe/ High Commision"?

In other words, are we going to give anyone the power of moderation of this board beyond the board owner? Because if so, now is really the best time to do it.


a3c0a7 No.116

>>115

>>114

Dude, just call them contributors. This doesn't need to be some fancy special snowflake name, they're contributors. It's like when janitors pretend they have any real authority.


83cd6f No.117

>>116

The only ones who can mod this board is the board owner and board volunteer.


a35a43 No.118

>>116

>This doesn't need to be some fancy special snowflake name, they're contributors.

I see your point. We don't want to aggrandize the moderation.

>>117

>board volunteer

Hm, it would work, but I don't like it as much as "Contributor".

Anyways, so my autism acted up again and went way overboard in drafting up the rules. I don't think that it's necessarily a bad think to roll with it, though; there's a reason real-world documents use this sort of language (it's rather black-and-white). Although, that first part is definitely unnecessary…

We the Starfags of /co/, in order to form a more cute and perfect board, establish fair moderation, insure constant anarchy, provide for the common interests, promote the general discussion, and secure the blessings of anonymity for ourselves and all the SvtFoE fandom, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Board of /svtfoe/.

>Article I - The Moderation

The Board Owner of /svtfoe/ possesses absolute power through virtue of owning the board. The individuals the Board Owner empowers to moderate /svtfoe/ shall henceforth be known as Contributors.

Contributors shall have both the right and responsibility of moderating the board through the application of the following corrections to violations of the Rules of /svtfoe/:

>Post editing

>Post deletion

>Bump-Locking

>Thread Locking

>Thread Deletion

>Warnings

>Temporary Bans

A Permanent Ban may only be issued by the Board Owner, although a Contributor may be entitled to apply a Ban with a term that is indefinite (i.e. unending), pending the Owner's review to become permanent.

If a user feels he has been subject to the abuse of above powers, they may make a complaint in a dedicated sticky thread. A Contributor found to be in contempt of their responsibility to fairness shall be stripped of their status, and banned permanently from /svtfoe/.

Said requirement for fairness in moderation shall be referred to as “Rule 0”.

>Article II - The Rules

Apart from Rule 0, there exist a number of Rules to which all posters are subject. The Rules of /svtfoe/ may be appended to, modified, or removed by the Board Owner at any time. Each Rule is accompanied by a recommended correction to be applied; however, the correction may be lightened or escalated on a case-by-case basis according to the applicator's judgment.

>Rule 1: Off-Topic Posts

All posts should pertain to the subject of Star vs the Forces of Evil, and the tone of discussion set by the OP. However, there should be much leniency in this rule, and as such the corrections when applied shall be light. Warnings and post deletions shall be the limit for individuals, while threads may be locked if off-topic posting is endemic within them. (However, note Rule 7.)

>Rule 2: Spoilers

The content of new episodes is considered protected for up to 24 hours after the official airdate. All mention of such protected content must be within spoiler tags. Violating posts shall be edited or deleted, and the poster subjected to a 3-hour temporary Ban.

>Rule 3: Sexual or Disturbing Content

/svtfoe/ is a blue board, and should remain SFW. This Rule recognizes three categories of NSFW content:

>Class A: Partial Nudity, Non-Explicit Fetish Material, Graphic Violence

>Class B: Total Nudity, Sexual Intercourse, Extreme Fetish (incl. Gore)

>Class C: Illegal or otherwise unspeakable Content

Class A may be posted in spoilers only. Class B may not be posted at all, only linked to (with an appropriate warning). For Class C, instructions on how to find them in any way, shape, or form is forbidden. Violations will me edited or deleted, and the poster Warned or Banned (even permanently) according to the severity of the violation.

>Rule 4: Duplicate Threads

If a thread for a topic already exists, any new ones will be deleted unless the old one has reached the bump limit and has passed page 2. (The exact page number will be subject to change in the future, depending on how much traffic the board gets.)

>Rule 5: Advertising

Posts that look like they were made by spambots shall be deleted, with their poster permanently Banned. Said Ban shall immediately be lifted upon proof that the poster was a human.

>Rule 6: Trolling

Don't be a faggot. If you start acting toxic, you'll get excised like the cancer you are.

>Rule 7: Repeat Violations

Multiple or subsequent violations of the Rules shall result in a harsher response, starting with a Temporary Ban lasting a day or longer. This applies even if several violations occurred before the user was issued a warning.

>Article III - The Relationship with /co/ and not/sveg/

4chan's /co/ is the Fatherland to this board. It is from there the founders of /svtfoe/ came, and where they would have remained if not for the hostile environment. Nevertheless, it is the wish of /svtfoe/ to remain at harmony with /co/.

The not/sveg/ thread on /co/ (when overlooked by the mods) has advantages over /svtfoe/, primarily in regards to attracting new visitors. Ideally, not/sveg/ and /svtfoe/ could enter a symbiotic relationship: not/sveg/ providing high-traffic general discussion and advertizing /svtfoe/, whereas /svtfoe/ provides a place for more specific threads and shelter from abusive mods.

>Article IV - Ratification

It's completely up to the Board Owner to accept this or not, but a consensus of the board founders would be ideal. Changes can be made to this document according to feedback, until it reaches an acceptable state.


a35a43 No.119

>>118

>ordain and establish

Hm, forgot to apply a silly edit to this part. Ah well, I can't think of anything right now anyways.


d02c19 No.120

>>102

I think it was a caching issue. A new post probably forces the cache to update.

>>103

>I think the banning threshold needs to be tighter than that, at least in cases where the rules are very clear and the violator should know he did something wrong. (e.g. spoilers)

Part of the problem is that I don't want this place to come off stricter than /co/ to new users.

And at least for SvtFoE threads, /co/ rarely enforced its spoiler policy except for the first few hours after it aired. It was longer for leaks, e.g. 6-12 hours, but even then it was spotty. Also in live threads, people don't really use spoilers, so there's a need for exceptions.

One possibility I've been considering is the ability to tag threads.

E.g. people who want to indicate that a thread will contain spoiler discussion can put #spoiler or #spoilers in the top line of their OP post.

A User JS script can process this, spoilering the entire thread in the index/catalog pages, inserting a bright/visible spoiler sign next to the hide button, removing the tag from the actual post text since it would then be redundant.

Then the people in that thread wouldn't need to spoiler any of their text.

>To give an example, I played SS13 on the /v/-run server for a while. In the game there's an OOC chat channel, and of course it's forbidden to speak of anything in-game in that channel. When I first joined, I would sometimes type into the wrong channel by accident. However, since there was a zero-tolerance policy on that, the tempbans I got each time made me quickly learn my lesson. I was definitely mad at first, but by the time they expired, I had cooled my head and seen the logic behind it.

That situation is different though. The draw was the game, and the channel was supplementary. Even though you were temp-banned from the channel, you still probably played the game, and eventually came back to channel due to it being part of the game.

Here, if someone gets temp-banned from the board, they'll just head over to /co/, and may never come back. 8ch doesn't have an inherent draw like that chat/game did; if they get temp-banned, they'll just say "moderation is weird/too strict" and swear it off.

>On something like spoilers, if you don't have similar draconian enforcement, then accidents (both real and fake) WILL occur, and with frequency.

Once a community is established, I'd be more okay with being stricter on rules.

A natural way this could happen is:

1) Lots of people start speaking up in threads of how tired they are of spoiler accidents.

2) We hold a vote to see if spoiler enforcement should be more strict.

3) Spoiler enforcement becomes more strict, as long as the vote indicates support.

>The ban doesn't have to be long, though; just long enough for the violator to feel a penalty. Can you do bans for less than a day? 2-6 hours would be sufficient for a first offense.

Bans can be arbitrarily long/short (e.g. 1 second, 100 years).

>Sounds good, although I don't know how much we should rely on other users; it could hamstring the mod if nobody calls them out on it first.

We can make a note in the rules to report the offending posts. As long as it shows up in the report queue, it's just a matter of opening up the thread.

>How about…

>>First offense: Warning, posts may be deleted

>>Repeated offense after warning (from mod or other users): Ban

>In other words, give the mod some flexibility to act immediately if something egregious happens.

It really depends on the offense. Some offenses are more egregious than others, and in those situations mods can respond with higher authority.

>It should be set off TV airdate only. We shouldn't expect *everyone* to know it if a leak happens a day in advance. The airdate is the only common reference we can reasonably blame someone for not checking.

>We can make special exceptions if the online leak happens unusually late or early.

This is something that will likely be put up to vote, as I'm not sure how the community feels about it. Thread tagging would help mitigate division.

>>106

When I was numbering things, I didn't mean for them to correspond to actual rule numbers. Rule 1 though should indeed be that content must be SvtFoE-related.

>>115

>And lastly, though I hesitate to say it out loud… I think that we should take the opportunity establish these earliest of contributors as the equivalent of Janitors.

On 8ch, the possible roles are board owner, board volunteers and reporters (there's also global volunteer and global owner, but those aren't relevant). Reporter is the closest thing to janitor we have, but they can't ban or delete. (I created one to see what they could do, they have a dashboard and can receive PMs, but their view of a board is the same as an anon's view. All they can do is report.)

>But instead of using that name for them, how about calling it the "/svtfoe/ High Commision"?

I'd be fine with referring to them as High Commission as an in-joke, but for the sake of people being able to search for what a role can/can't do, we'll at least need to mention the 8ch names when applicable.

>In other words, are we going to give anyone the power of moderation of this board beyond the board owner? Because if so, now is really the best time to do it.

Once the rules are established, we can appoint board volunteers to enforce the rules. Right now, the board is small enough that it's not a problem, but that could change quickly.


a35a43 No.121

>>120

>That situation is different though. The draw was the game, and the channel was supplementary. Even though you were temp-banned from the channel, you still probably played the game, and eventually came back to channel due to it being part of the game.

No, I was banned from the server, which meant the game as well. And there are no other servers in the world that run /v/'s version of SS13; not that it really matters, since the community is what makes the game enjoyable.

The situation is basically the same here, as in both cases just one slip could ruin an entire game/episode, and there really isn't any way for people to avoid it while still participating.

>Thread tagging

I suppose threads dedicated to episode reactions and the like could be exempt, except for the OP.

In general though, I don't see tagging threads as being helpful at all. If an OP contains spoilers that aren't blacked out, then people will see them. Otherwise, people would see that the OP has something blacked out and/or is talking about the new episode, and should avoid such threads if he doesn't want spoilers.

>Reporter is the closest thing to janitor we have, but they can't ban or delete.

Well, that's not what I meant then. I meant something more like whatever 'scruffy' is.


d02c19 No.127

Sorry about the hiatus in posting. I noticed that /co/ oddly enough stopped banning threads once there was talk of creating our own board here. This led to there not really being an incentive to post here, so naturally most posters went back to /co/ (that's something I think we can remedy by creating sub-communities that wouldn't have been welcome to post on /co/ anyway, e.g. with writefagging).

Now that the bans have picked up again, we might get another influx, and discussion can be resumed. I'll respond to all posts over the weekend, and post a first-version of the rules.


d02c19 No.136

The poll has been leaning pretty heavily toward having IDs for a while, so I've turned them on.


2e0470 No.142

>>69

Hello,

Could the board owner please let Tor users post in this thread ?

>>136

>The poll has been leaning pretty heavily toward having IDs for a while, so I've turned them on.

I disagree with the use of IDs, it's killing and goes against the purpose of Anon boards if you do so.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 2hu / asmr / egy / f / fit / hypno / newbrit / vore ]