The /x/ radio threads on /x/ are being deleted. The /x/ radio

They did the same thing to /a/ radio threads a few years ago when /q/ was still up. I think the excuse they gave was advertising.

>>528538
There are tons of shitty threads lately. Maybe mods are just cleaning house. Good luck with the podcast, though. Sounds like a cool idea.

>>528544

The weird thing is that /x/ actually has entire threads dedicated to creepy podcasts, there were daily threads on a specific podcast when there was some drama on the related forum a while ago.

If there's been a change of policy and all meta media is verboten we'll have to work with the mod team to work out a solution, but I hope we're looking at a well meaning but over-enthusiastic janny.

Whatever the cause, I'm sure we can sort it out with a quick chat.

>>528549

Possibly, I may have inadvertently caused this, I went and reported a third of the threads on the board every day for a few days a few weeks ago. Shit like "how can aliums be real if our eyes aren't real" or "how does it feel knowing you're all schizo roleplayers."

They actually deleted most of the shit threads pretty quickly, so reporting does actually work. It's nice that we have people who care about /x/, I just hope we can work something out here on /qa/.

Bump from page 6.

I'm sorry, I haven't used /qa/, I'm imagining it to be much like /q/ where mods respond to people and work out issues. Has /qa/ moved to a more user centric model? If so I'll hop on IRC and talk to someone there.

Thanks again!

As far as I am concerned, if you're even remotely advertising something, they're gonna want you to buy ad-space. It doesn't matter if it's for the board or not.

>>529338

I agree that by the letter of the law we are advertising by posting the link to the podacast, but we have several arguments.

First, the spirit of the law doesn't cover free board based content.

Second, if we were to post the /x/ radio discussion threads without links, would that be counted as advertising or not?

Finally, if we purchased ad space would that entitle us to discuss /x/ radio on the board itself, because that's the really important point. We need to discuss our product with /x/ to make it better for /x/.

All we want is to make a top quality product for /x/, and we can only do that by talking to /x/. Whatever the verdict, we need to discuss it with the mod team so we can work out how to tailor our approach to be within the rules.

>>529420
>I agree that by the letter of the law we are advertising by posting the link to the podacast, but we have several arguments.

That doesn't make sense, though. By extension, it would be pretty easy to then argue that posting any links to any outside media whatsoever would constitute advertising. For example, youtube threads, soundcloud threads, and even links to citations or source material would also fall under the advert rubric.

>>529420
>Finally, if we purchased ad space would that entitle us to discuss /x/ radio on the board itself

Pay to play? That seems pretty fucked. Imagine Milo buys ad space for his new book tour or whatever, then that somehow gives him license to go on /pol/ and spam multiple threads selling his wares. No. Slippery slope.

That being said, as with most rules, if there isn't an informed person making intelligent choices about how said rules are to be enforced, then its just "no tolerance policy" fascist system.

In the particular case of this /x/ based podcast thing, clearly that's just kids from /x/ putting on a show for other kids on /x/ and threads related to it should be tolerated.

Further, a good argument could be made for actually encouraging such activities as it makes the board more interesting and lively.

>>529486
>as it makes the board more interesting and lively.

That's the problem. Mods hate that shit.

>>529477

Advertisement involves promotion of a work, using a citation is not the same thing as explicitly directing people to a link. Ideally we can keep the link because of the arguments in >>529486 but even if we can't post the link, we want to be able to at least discuss the show on /x/ in lieu of links.

>>529486

We're hoping that we're looking at an over-enthusiastic janny rather than a zero tolerance mod policy. We'll see how it pans out in the thread.

>>529628
>First, the spirit of the law doesn't cover free board based content.


This is board based content, an attempt to make a board that is going to shit fun again. its a community based project that anyone can join and everyone can enjoy. If we were posting on /b/ then maybe you'd be right, but this is /x/.

>>529634

We literally agree. Please reread.

I don't think 4chan has gotten so big that we have to resort to strict by-the-book interpretation of rules.
In other words, 4chan rules should be more "guidelines" than actual rules.

(of course this implies we need a mod team that's not mentally challenged)
You need mods who really understand the motivation behind such rules.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel pretty confident that the whole purpose behind rules against self-promotion is mostly for the purpose of preventing attention whores and spam.

So if someone is doing something for good of the board with nothing to be personally gained from it, and they don't spam it, post it 1 time and everyone seems to enjoy it, then I'd say it should be ok.
That's how moderators should operate.

P.S. I have no idea of /x/ radio meets those requirements or not. I'm not writing this to support them or anything, I don't browse /x/. Just throwing out my opinion on how rules like this should be handled.

>>529420

> we need to discuss it with the mod team
Probably not going to happen, let's be real.

>>528538
Don't bother, everything is replaced by homonculi/tulpa/RP. We just have to leak to other boards, since everything good , even complaints, get deleted from /x/.

>>528544
>They did the same thing to /a/ radio threads a few years ago when /q/ was still up.
That was more or moot being butthurt that an anon created community was more successful than any of the community projects moot attempted outside of 4chan, because it illustrates that fact that he was always useless without us and that we are the true success of this place, not him.

>>529486
The livelier the board, the more activity and spontaneity occurs. This is harder to moderate and mods are lazy cunts, which is why they tend to take actions such as allowing generals and endless template threads, because the more predictable something is, the easier it is to overseer.

I guess that's what happens when you don't pay people to work for you: it ends up attracting exactly the sort of individuals who should never be put in such a position in the first place.

>>530298

Same could be said for /x/ radio. Heard they had a schism over leadership or something.

>>530292

Well yeah but he's the millionaire I guess, made out like a bandit. I wouldn't mind being a useless millionaire.

>>530298

We'll see how it goes, hopefully the relevant people are reading this thread and it's being discussed. When the latest episode is out some time this week we'll start a new thread on /x/ and link back to this one, we'll also avoid directly linking to outside websites like soundcloud and instead give people a string to google that returns our soundcloud. I'm sure other people will give out the links in the thread anyway so it won't affect us too much.

If it's still deleted we'll try talking to someone on IRC, I can't imagine that this will be hard to resolve, we just take out the offending pieces of text and we're golden, all we need to know from the mods is what parts are the problem.

Love you all lots, stay spooky.

Stayin' alive.

If we can't have our Otherside of Midnight, Midnight in the Desert, Amy on the Radio and Coast to Coast AM threads anymore then you can't have your self promoted podcasts threads.

File: hiro on rules.png (8KB, 506x124px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 506x124px

>>529670
The problem is that it seems like each mod does whatever the fuck they want because they can. It doesn't require much to see that the population of a board is enjoying a thread, be it off-topic, mildly related to a board's subject or completely on-topic, but they would rather not give a fuck about 4chan's userbase and delete everything based on what they believe a board is about.
And the worst thing is that we can't do shit about it. Sure, there's /qa/ and the feedback form, but it's kind of obvious that they don't give a shit about either of them.

But this fine /x/ thread has been up for over 24 hours now.

>>>/x/17711716

>>536048

Deleted now. I guess the mods are watching this thread.

We hope to have the next episode out on Sunday, we hope everything is sorted by then. Thanks mods!

re bampu

The ghost blowjob train has no brakes.

>>528544
And also happened with /v/ radios over 5 years ago, same reason

And that drunken ghost can still shit up /pol/ with his radio shit. /pol/ needs anti ad mods.

no brakes

New mini episode is up. See thread >>>/x/17726920

I've also asked that the janny who deletes the threads discuss the reasons here.

Thanks all!