Thanks all for actually stepping up and progressing the conversation.
Again I don't make the policy but I can help brainstorm with the community to convince Balrog of new rules.>>7685
Well I think we should allow a BO to owner more than one board (since boards are usually topic based and a person could manage multiple topics). The possibility of having two boards interact in new and creative ways is rare. I think what makes this situation different is because of the special status of the >>>/news/
being on the homepage.
So maybe we could create a class of "special" boards that has a specific class of rules. And then how far do we take it? For example, is >>>/pol/
a special class? It's definitely not a normal board by any means. but >>>/am/
or /librejp/ probably aren't. If we were going to go by popular 4chan board names, what about /sp/?
Maybe the solution is changes to the homepage. I had planned a checkbox to remove the news, but how about an ability to change that box to be the latest posts of any board you specify? But the default would likely be news (and still giving a "special"-like status, I guess). So maybe something to do but I don't think this addresses the issue does it?>>7687>Do you really want a single BO to destroy a big part of this community?
Well that's the thing. the BOs are responsible for their communities. They're the ones that make a board succeed or not. They put in the effort to manage content and attract people.
Cross-board traffic is rare and more of a side effect. Maybe the reality of this and my perception are off here but it's not like we have any tools to track this. While I understand there are adjacent topics, there are also distant ones; I doubt >>>/sp/
posts to >>>/AM/
I guess my point here is that I don't see Endchan as one big community but several groups of smaller communities. And what we're talking about here, what should be allowed varies between the groups. >>7690>I don't think we need to make a hard rule here
Hard rules are required because the best intentions of an admin can be interpreted in many ways. D&C shills live off this shit. Luckily I think most users develop a callus against obvious misrepresentations and fall into their cognitive biases.
Would you really want to use a board that was "do anything until Odili/Balrog decide they don't like that any more"?
A balance has to be made and maintained because hard rules and soft rules. >Ae + Am + Ad + Ac + Ae +AgT + Acf + AgF + AgD
Yea it's a good attempt at showing a hard rule but really just shows how much intuition is needed.
We could debate all these points but I think my wall of text is long enough here.>>7701>You are doing pretty well in the matter of strawmanning<refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
if didn't understand the argument that was presented, that maybe your issue in communicating it.<pol was never given away to the wrong person >contrary to site rules
Name one claim problem with pol, because I can't think of any.>GGR after admitting to breaking rules
You're talking about what Balrog did, I was referring to the initial GGR claim. I can't speak for Balrog, I can only speak for my actions. <honest mistake>somehow not rectified weeks later
Are you implying I should have waited after I found out I fucked up? Nah, I fixed it immediately, notified all involved and made a public post about it.>>7705>where the good of the site is in question admins will never be straitjacketed by anyone's rules
an interesting point. I guess this is exactly what Balrog did with GGR. He felt the good of the site is in question. The good of the site is much more murky to me.>ride the ride and wait an see works
yea, that's my hope is that we do a good enough job that we build trust and continue.>>7709>wreck a whole news board
Well I do feel like the BOs are in charge to make sure this doesn't happen. Plus the software needs to provide enough tools which is on the admins/devs. Spammers gonna spam.