Threads that could develop in to vidya discussion get deleted. They obviously used to delete eceleb threads until administration told them to GTFO, that those are games culture.
The OP can't fucking mention consoles without the potential for the thread to get deleted. Examples: http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/320947936 http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321826634
The board's ignorance and potential starts and stops with moderation. Its low level of communication develops the standards for what to report. If the board is reporting what they don't like instead of what's off topic, that's literally Reddit. Stopping reports is as simple as a mod post.. or even less than that if the site implements it (a message on the report window and no report option).
Another example is this, where within the few posts is lots of potential for vidya discussion: http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321831842/#321831842
>>396776 Do you remember when /v/ used to be /b/-2.0? Constant off-topic garbage left and right.. Now /v/ is cured now it's a PUNISHMENT to talk about video games. I know this because I've been here since 2006. Lots have changed.
>those are games culture Behold, the mosy gaggy statement of 2015 I hope you trip and fall into a woodchipper you subhuman faggot I would jack off to the sound of you screaming in agony under the worst torture medieval witchhunters could invent YOU are the reason /v/ hasnt been worth browsing since fucking 2009
>>397057 Except, the example threads are already as on topic as any eceleb thread is. Those, for example, aren't about "video games", but journalism sites like Giant Bomb have huge exhibitions on providing game awards -- and they're all literally discussing vidya, even though the OP "isn't about a game".
>>397088 It's the party making the claim that it's helpful.
Yet, more splits don't actually fix "a lack of consistent moderation / disagreement over what is and isn't board related" on the industry/culture board. There's already a place to discuss "just video games", >>>/vg/
>>397091 >There's already a place to discuss "just video games"
Uhh, no, that's a place for generals. I guess the idea was to discuss just the video games originally, but generals work more as a way to create a community and OC. Granted, that's not what generals should be, but it is what it is.
>>397088 >>397091 Also, all of these problems are fixed by just having consistent standards for what should be deleted.
Protip: it should be minimal. Unless it can be explicitly stated that a thread has nothing to do with video games, there's literally no reason to delete it. Obviously, if eceleb threads aren't to be deleted, neither should be "what is the X of video games". This is the sort of standards that are required by moderation to develop a decent board meta. What do you imagine mods "just fucking guessing" does to posters investing in the board and threads?
>>397093 Uhh, yes. Increasing that board's traffic would benefit both the games there and their discussion. If that's popular enough and threads can't stay up, those games don't deserve to be there.
>>397099 >all of these problems are fixed by just having consistent standards for what should be deleted.
Yes. If you include "video game culture" as part of what's allowed to be posted in /v/ but then delete industry discussion threads, isn't that a blurred line on what's allowed or not? Either delete that part from the rules (huge backlash) or move it somewhere (slightly less huge backlash, lesser of two evils)
>>397102 >If you include "video game culture" as part of what's allowed to be posted in /v/ but then delete industry discussion threads, isn't that a blurred line on what's allowed or not? What's stating that deleting industry discussion should be? /v/ has battlestation and PC component discussion just fine.
PC vs. console baiting, especially with that image.
Off topic / not vidya. That thread didn't even make sense.
The moderations seem appropriate in this case, although you probably shouldn't have gotten anything more than a warning unless you have an extensive history of shitposting.
>If the board is reporting what they don't like instead of what's off topic, that's literally Reddit.
Spouting "gb2reddit" at anyone who disagrees with you instantly destroys any credibility you may have.
/v/ does occasionally have bullshit moderation, but you have to grant the mods some leeway considering the sheer volume of shitposting they have to deal with on a daily basis, some cases more subtle than others. They're bound to misjudge.
And saying it's possible to have a serious discussion about video games on /v/ is laughable. /v/ is the very definition of a containment board. If you're serious about this, then you need to migrate over to a more on-topic board, such as >>>/vg/ or >>>/vr/
>>397130 >>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/320947936 >Obvious console war baiting. It has nothing to do with console banter at all. The 3DS is fucking obsolete, and it was before it was produced. The PS4 contrast is just to have an anchor for what defines a decent system.
>>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321826634 >PC vs. console baiting, especially with that image. It's basically fucking semantics. /v/ is primarily PC. What the fuck relevance is a little humor picture and a literally decent OP question?
>>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321831842/#321831842 >Off topic / not vidya. That thread didn't even make sense. Do games have lifting? Then, couldn't the discussion of improving those game mechanics come from that thread? Oh, well what about improving accuracy as is mentioned in first set of replies?
Fucking standards -- git gud. If there's no place for the thread, it'll get pushed off. If there's no vidya discussion, then it can be deleted. As of that thread's deletion, it is neither of those categories.
>>If the board is reporting what they don't like instead of what's off topic, that's literally Reddit. >Spouting "gb2reddit" at anyone who disagrees with you instantly destroys any credibility you may have. Maybe English isn't your first language.
>/v/ does occasionally have bullshit moderation, but you have to grant the mods some leeway considering the sheer volume of shitposting they have to deal with on a daily basis Nah, they literally ban IPs for similar posts. Even you say that would be unnecessary.
Also, as stated, the board's quality is their duty. If they can't figure out to be lenient on the board, what room do they have to claim there's too much to delete.
Your last paragraph really does show your standards. It's also wholly off topic, and quite anecdotally.
The real issue is the opposite - when there are threads that start off on-topic, but always devolve into nonsense after a short while with very few on-topic replies in-between. Mods and janitors don't give a damn about a thread if the OP looks legit and the rest of the thread is trash. "OP checks out? It's clear." This needs to stop.
>>401243 Nah, because that doesn't account for awful opinions, low standards, or the low level of posting that is /v/ culture.
Name/codefags can't show consistent quality without off-topic "filtered" comments and other tripe. What's more probable, post quality on a forum where there can be esteem or on a forum with culturally forced anonymity? That's just an example.
>>401245 >awful opinions I'm not talking about opinions. >low standards That's what I'm talking about. I'm saying that there are a lot of threads that start off with an on-topic looking OP, and they devolve into something that isn't actually about video games. Delete the thread if it goes off-topic and stays that way for a little while. How few janitors can actually be on at a time? And how do they miss these 200+ post threads that have been up for many hours and where most of the discussion isn't even about video games?
>>401266 I guess on second thought that opinions can actually be retarded. Still, I just wish that large threads that aren't on-topic and have been up for hours would actually get deleted. If you leave those threads up it only encourages more people to post off-topic things on the board. If there's no punishment, then why bother staying on-topic when you can act like an idiot for easy replies?
>>401269 Probably because mods ban for literally no reason. If they didn't do that, maybe the vocal minority that also slip bans wouldn't be all upset about getting banned for their thread going off topic or from the picture that was relevant to the topic, just not explicitly taken from a video game -- AKA, they'd give a shit about the board quality.
It's challenging to play the strengths of the board where moderation is so whimsy. Girls show more consistency.
It becomes about pushing the moderation to just allow that single thread, and they do. Until they stop being ass holes, they're probably going to keep finding the same level of volatility they put out.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.