/meta/ - Suggestions

cheshire.jpg
[Hide] (196.8KB, 1024x1024)

basado

>>2555 (OP) 
I'm of a couple minds on this. On the one hand, yeah, I see why someone might want that. On the other hand, I'd rather have content be deleted immediately and instead log the mod who took an action. Something about hosting things after they're deleted makes me queasy.

1744160189975409.jpg
[Hide] (130.1KB, 1024x763)

>>2557
>Something about hosting things after they're deleted makes me queasy.
can you name that thing?

because it's the only way for users to detect janny infiltration. seems like a very reasonable and easy to implement feature.

i'm sure it would make anyone who does not want users to detect janny infiltration queasy

>>2558
1. If it's porn, it doesn't need to be there but you'd be keeping it anyway 2. If a mod deletes something illegal and forgets to not tick the preserve box, now you have to have functionality to delete things from the log, which defeats the entire point of a log, 3. just having the mod that does something accomplishes the same thing as keeping the content (you know who did what) without having to actually store the stuff, and 4. who's to say an infiltrator wouldn't just not store things and claim illegal content (now you're back to square 1). IMO it's a solution looking for a problem.

1744918232458h.png
[Hide] (186.4KB, 513x406)

>>2559
>1. If it's porn, it doesn't need to be there but you'd be keeping it anyway 

the ability for the userbase to detect janny infiltration is far outweighs any legal porn being accessible. you could even add a captcha to view so that it's impractical to use the logs as a secondary porn board.

>2. If a mod deletes something illegal and forgets to not tick the preserve box, now you have to have functionality to delete things from the log, which defeats the entire point of a log,

just set preserve to the default 

>3. just having the mod that does something accomplishes the same thing as keeping the content (you know who did what) without having to actually store the stuff, and 

however it stops other users from viewing the deletion patterns of the jannies, which is my entire point of suggesting this.

>4. who's to say an infiltrator wouldn't just not store things and claim illegal content (now you're back to square 1). 
then we'll see a pattern of a particular janny deleting and claiming illegal content more than the other jannies.

>>2560
>just set preserve to the default
An infiltrator would just claim they're deleting illegal content and untick it. The big concern isn't that there'd be porn on the site, the big concern is that we'd end up with CP in the logs and then have to make a way to go into the logs and delete it (by law), which renders this whole thing dispurposeful - an infiltrator would either hide what they're doing or delete evidence of it. I appreciate your enthusiasm fren, but I feel this is misguided and would introduce problems.

>>2561
How about then at least preserving the text of the post and other metadata?

autodelete the image.

>>2555 (OP) 
I admit i forget to include the post that was deleted sometimes (rarely delete, mostly move. Anons are well behaved)
Maybe you can check out /hell/ for posts marked with a ban or move just to see whats up if the logs dont provide clarity.

>>2563
Issue here is that sometimes the text itself links to illegal content and that's the same can of worms as with the image. I think the best solution here is to run your own archive (I'm making the archive software open source) and check deleted content against the logs once we make them public. That way you don't have to rely on a central authority for truth. Is that acceptable?

>>2566
then there is the problem of locally hosting illlegal content unless one personally prunes the local archive constantly.

I don't think the links themselves are illegal, and it would be easy to apply a simple filter to remove things like "https, http, ".", "/", "com" ".onion" from each post if that is necessary.

>>2564
around 2/3 of the logs are actions that actions that cannot be followed up on, just post numbers.

>>2570
That's part of the problem. We have an obligation to delete links to illegal content but we also want to make moderation more transparent. We'll come up with a solution in due time, and we always welcome suggestions.

>>2561
What does “unregistered user” mean in the logs?

Emergent℠.png
[Hide] (1.3MB, 1488x1111)

>>2558
>can you name that thing?
I can..
We had a rogue jewfaggot janny who was posting bullshit and then SS it to post elsewhere.
Also doing shit like spam trolling with the same retarded loaded questions, while never addressing the reasonable responses as to why he's being B& or his over9000 spam posts are being deleted.
He's then go on to post them on other venues with a sob story about how we're feds and shit B& ing him (cue Colin Flaherty voice-over) "for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL"

While archiving filled or dead threads should be the norm, deleted threads carry the connotations that they were toxic, damaged or illegal in the first place.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (127.9KB, 1258x702)

even 4plebs maintains 10 pages of deleted posts for every board.

>deleted threads carry the connotations that they were toxic, damaged or illegal in the first place.

yes this is what users should be able to verify

>>2651
>SS it to post elsewhere.
who cares about image? just comply with the law. 4plebs is able to do under much much worse circumstance.

it would be very easy, safe, and legal to at least maintain deleted posts text with links broken or removed, and images auto removed (if jannies don't want to deal checking a box for illegal content)

>with a sob story about how we're feds

i guess it's up to the mods to choose what's more important to them

are they more concerned about shills and retards calling them feds to other retards (which people can't even make their own determination of if they can't see the deleted posts)

or

are they more concerned about people who are very seriously concerned about transparency and truth (these quality people would easily be able to debunk shill by checking a deleted archive).

the resistance to this is very strange to me (so many easy solutions yet weak arguments against).

if you're going to do an archive, and mods are suggesting doing a self-run deleted post check, what if a person just implements this themselves and makes it available to others? why make us jump through all these hoops when the outcome is the same?

if I have to run my own archive of this site with easily accessible deleted posts of 4plebs quality and make it publicly available to other people on the board, I will be very annoyed.

I would pay for whatever costs are associated with just doing this natively.

>>2666
The problem is the legal risk. Not so much anything else. Minimize exposure is a wise principle.

>>2667

that's been brought up several times. 4plebs didn't seem to have any problems. anyways,

could you address that in the context of 
-auto removing any images
-removing/breaking all links
-preserving only non-image/non-link text and metadata

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (68.9KB, 515x604)

>>2667
also if you could cite the law(s) you are concerned about running afoul of (in the context of >>2668)

>>2668
>>2669
4plebs is not 4chan. Too many eggs in one basket.

>>2670
so then there's no issue running the archive (inclusive of deleted posts) on a separate domain (under a separate legal entity, if necessary - i'm offering to pay)?

>>2671
Nah man, I'm not a mod. They've decided no for whatever reason. I see why. If you've decided differently, they've given you the op. to do it that way. Drop it.

1743880533579452.png
[Hide] (282.3KB, 838x804)

i just find the reasons for this to be consistently vague and evasive. really sketches me out.

it's the one way a user could nootice infiltration or influence patterns.

transparency isn't transparency if there is a black box of deleted posts.

i'll check back once in a while and see if the archive software is available. until then, due to the evasive and vague handling of this issue, i need the ability to verify before trusting this place.

i know that my concerns will be resolved if my skepticism is misplaced.