There's been a lot of flack recently about /b/'s recent cp flood. personally I'm appalled by such material, and I have to wonder how this stuff stays online. then I realize that the one tool that normal user's have for board regulation, the infamous SAGE, is more or less impotent. I've seen furry and torture threads last in /b/ for 20 minutes with up to 30 something sages, most of them properly placed in the email field. So in the end anonymous is forced to rely on mods an janitors, who really only care about bumping their own inane threads.
From what I know of the mechanics of these boards, SAGE only acts to increase the post count without bumping the thread, Slowly advancing a thread to its natural demise. If this is true, then as demonstrated, a poster who relentlessly bumps his own thread, or enlists the help of a few cohorts to assist in bumping, can keep a shitty thread up nearly a half hour on /b/... a veritable eternity.
Would it not be possible through scripting to enable SAGE a greater degree of potency? Granted, /b/ is populated by assholes, who would love nothing more than to ruin an otherwise decent thread, but Seriously it really shouldn't take more than 4 or 5 unique SAGE to kill (read: delete) a thread. Would there really be a need for janitors, if enough users recognized the need to remove a thread?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-07 21:26 (sage)
>>1 4 or 5 unique SAGE to kill (read: delete)
I lolled. (I hope this thread dies after 4 sages)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-07 21:31
This thread will die, as all threads do, however I sincerely doubt that individual sage will make any significant negative contribution to its lifetime.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-07 21:41 (sage)
ok... SEGA!
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-07 21:41
The idea of sages being regulating is actually really interesting, though 4-5 sounds much too low. I'd say more like 15 or so unique sages (unique means from a unique IP) would be better, but even so that should still be doable for widely disliked topics. It'd be interesting anyway, maybe not deleted, but to stop it from aging anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-07 21:49
hell, even if it took 30 sages to kill a thread i'd be glad to have a means of regulation
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-08 8:13
ten sages should kill any thread on any board
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-08 8:28 (sage)
1 mikuru-sage should instapwn any thread.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-08 14:52
Stupid because all someone needs to delete a thread is 30 proxies and some programming skills.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-08 23:40
>>9
that's too much effort for the average user. and if by chance somebody DOES go through the motions and automate a proxy-Sage... big deal. sooner or later the proxies will end up on the permaban list anyway.
>>7
For shits and giggles I got a couple of friends together to try and Sage a CP thread in /b/ to death. it took 24 sage (at least 9 unique) and 28 minutes before the thread was deleted. true the thread also had 2 Ages, but seriously, this is ridiculous
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-09 0:03 (sage)
>>10
I vouch to release a program that looks up proxies, tests them to see if they work then auto-sage deletes a thread, if this becomes reality.
>>11
If they make some rule where a static amount of sage kills a thread, I challenge you to a coding competition.
The first one to kill all of the threads on 4chan wins.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 6:14 (sage)
SAGERU
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 12:19
>>19
I'm not advocating janitors in /b/, I don't think individuals should have the power to delete. However, being an anonymous mob, the collective should have a means of silencing individual persistent assholes.
>>20
perhaps static counts are the wrong way to go. it should take more to kill a popular thread than a one-man-rant. regardless there should be a means of self regulation among /b/tards. as for the rest of 4chan... let the mods and janitors handle it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 14:42
>>22
No, there very often times needs to be a way to clean up /v/ without having to resort to posting porn to get the fucking mods to finally show up.
Maybe 10 is a little small but FUCK we need SOMETHING that isn't utterly useless in the face of the most kuso sures you've ever seen that sadly won't stop being aged by the same goddamn person.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 14:59
>>23
hence the emphasis on Unique Sages and Ages. Sage-spam should be (and is) pointless, however if several unique users recognize a thread's merit, or lack there of, there should be a more meaning full means of keeping things in check.
I've heard it suggested once that enough ages should force an auto sticky, however this brings us back to the dangerous point of abuse, and almost more importantly; the consequences such modifications would have to 4chan culture. Part of the ideals of anonymous posting is the freedom it provides compared to boards in which posters maintain an identity. despite /b/'s mob mentality and me-too-isms, anonymity grants each user freedom from the Internet equivalent of peer pressure. "who cares what anybody else thinks of me or my post? Next post is an entirely new identity for all anyone cares."
When one tries to implement "peer-grading" even on the rudimentary scale of mere ages/sages, it attaches value and reputation to not just the post, but the poster and his ePenis. fear of rejection may lead to the rampant uniformity that /b/tards flock to 4chan in order to escape. Perhaps this freedom is worth putting up with furries and torture-cat every now and then, I don't know.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 15:18 (sage)
don't threads close automatically after 1000 posts?
Name:
TROLLMINSTER2006-06-10 15:19
we don't give a flying fuck for your subjective view and how appalled you are BY CP or whatever. mods delete CP when it's spotted or reported to them via irc. as for continuation of 4chan: doesn't matter if the cp last 30 minutes and then gets deleted by a mod or sagekilled after 20. you only wants a unnessecary system that would only be abused.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 15:25
>>24
It might seem that way, but you get the same effect if a thread is greeted with 20 "STOP POSTING"s. However, I'm more in favor of total freedom and anarchy on /b/.
Oh, that and Soviet Sunday.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-10 15:35
>>25
No. No they don't. >>26
Rarely, and no, I merely proposed a system with the hopes of input from people more knowledgeable about the subject than myself. I have no confidence that any of these ideas being thrown around will be even Considered by anyone with authority to make any significant changes. If you read my First post (OP speaking), you'll notice it was merely musing about the feasibility of such a syst- Oh dear... Ive been trolled haven't I?
So YouTube having porn for over 5 days is okay then? If you don't like the CP threads then why do you keep opening them?
But here's an idea, stop making inane fucking posts in the text boards complaining about it and make your own, more interesting, posts in /b/ then.
Or gtfo, choice is yours.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-03 19:34 ID:nOjqOU8Y
posting tits
oh wait this isnt /b/
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-03 23:47 ID:8SV0sH/7
It would not be a bad idea to give more power to sage but consider the fact that /b/ ARE ASSHOLES theyrefor if lets say after 10 sage the thread is deleted how many people on /b/ would simply spam sage in every single thread. Also this would make /b/ vulnerable to being raided wich is also a bad idea. Besides when you say shitty thread do you mean camwhores being spammed the hell out of them or simply gore thread that are simply delectable.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-04 4:22 ID:d6lUce7v
This is a good idea. Instead of a static number to delete/unable-to-bump a thread, use a ratio. If unique sages and unique posters reach a certain ratio the thread gets deleted/unable-to-bump.
Proxies might be usefull. But they are bond to get banned sooner or later. Heck, a lot of thor proxies are already banned.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy