/meta/ - Suggestions

>solve
nigga you just click and wait

Screenshot_2025-06-16_at_20-20-22_Ourchan.png
[Hide] (211.4KB, 1349x797)

>>3479 (OP) 
Fucking KEK!
The poster of that must have been one of the posters who was in that thread where I created a new thread to keep those faggots from derailing.

They could have at least posted it right--I'd NEVER use "Ok" in a thread subject, only OKAY?

1432706837392.png
[Hide] (49.8KB, 758x848)

>>3483
This and >>/bant/3871
>fc and that was fucking glowie central for sure
and other instances of Fedjacketing have upped their occurrence here in the last couple months from 0 to 88.

Just leaving this note here.

>No article on 16chan on that lame wiki
They are missing half the juice! (Not a pun, 16chan was a great chan.)

It's the third or forth result. Someone should update it.

>>3485
>>>/bant/3871
Just posting this to see what you were posting about
*Polite Sage

>>3435 (OP) 
This has been said a thousand times already: all the users worth extracting from soyjak were already informed of this place during the first week or so of 4chan going down. All users worth extracting from there are already here or have moved on to other places after bookmarking this one. There's no real cross-over whatsoever with their core userbase and ours; I don't even consider the detritus of 4pol (post-zombification) worth advertising for, but the latter is merely my opinion while the former is objective fact.

feraljak-soyjak.gif
[Hide] (2.1MB, 640x610)

>>3437
Blatantly untrue, even deceptive

Space, are things okay on your end?
I was going to stop bumping this thread entirely. I didn't care if the posts stayed on /r/ so long as it wouldn't happen again, but now the posts have been sent to /hell/. It sends a mixed message.

>>3402
Thanks for pointing it out to me. It wasn't me that did that. I'll have to talk more with the moderator if he keeps moving things unnecessarily.

>>3402
I moved them before Space first posted. He wasn't responsible for that.

>>3403
>>3404
I fully support the mod who moved this (presumably ST). It's unclever garbage tier spam that we've seen too many times over.

>>3411
>I fully support the mod who moved this 
That's because you are gay

>>3379 (OP) 
gay

>>3346 (OP) 
Good thread. Bumping.
>Do you need more mods? It's not something I really want to do, but if I could instantly delete illegal threads and nothing else, I might do it. I keep irregular hours and randomly check the overboard every so often.
This, although two new jannies are on their way. Clearly, this chan has upset glowniggers, kikes, and the other brown riff-raff due to the recent barrages of CP.

1659721610390018.png
[Hide] (303.8KB, 472x470)

>>3337
Not the worst idea. Traffic is light currently. Some of my favorite threads will go 12 hours without a new reply, but conversation quality is still maintained.

c5af563637fa729e5278a98f75b92d69ca4f8b5dabee2c7b4bd3f675d7347a35.png
[Hide] (1MB, 1449x916)

>>3337
>read only
Terrible idea.
Posts pending approval could work.

If I made an imageboard, I would categorize all posts into two categories:
1. Mod reviewed/approved
2. Unreviewed

If some situations you may not want to allow an image to be shown publicly until it has been reviewed either automatically or manually. Is it feasible to do this for every media file posted? It depends. At minimum there should be a database of checksums or unique file IDs for previously approved and rejected files, so everything that is posted more than once gets an automatic judgement.


There should always be a queue of unreviewed posts which await manual review. Such a queue is extremely useful even if you don't intend to manually review every single post received. Review is a simple process: apply tags to a post or its attachments. legal/illegal, sfw/NSFW, etc.

If there is no list of queued unreviewed posts, a moderator's job is unnecessarily difficult because posts go all over the website, its boards, and threads in an unordered fashion, especially when sage is used

>>3339
>If some situations
In

>>3339
Sharty has this, can't stand it. Imo this should only be enabled during raids

>>3341
I'd support it but I dont know how much of a strain such an idea would put on our devs when it comes to implementing this as a feature.