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