Hey /r9k/ I just got a good idea. What if we just had elected

File: 1493984475556.jpg (5KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x184px

>>37496965
>Thoughts?

I want this

>>37496965
What makes you think we have the power to do something like that?

>>37496965
https://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1436380977/

it existed a while back at demochan.org

didn't work out too great, most of the discussion revolved around the working of the boards itself

>oh no a good thread
>better delete it
>more room for the fembots and and tranny threads :DDD
>time for my hourly 6pack of hotpockets

I want there to be no mods. Fucking redditfags have a huge hardon for jannies and mods but that is because they are retarded.

>>37496994
I don't know how we'd go about this.
It's an idea that most site staff are hostile to, and the dinosaurs running 4chan are no exception.
>>37497186
Well I think its more an issue of implementation. We'd need solid procedures, and multiple moderators agreeing to enforce rules as present. Board rules could be changed if the moderator agrees to a refferendum and the refferendum could determine board rules. Naturally board rules conflicting with site policy such as no illegal content would be vetoed from above.
>>37497188
We can't get rid of mods and we need rules, but when moderators are all appointed by people who know nothing about the userbase and its culture we get shit like modern /r9k/

>>37497325
>Well I think its more an issue of implementation

I highly recommend you read more into the history of demochan

it was implemented as well as it could have been. In fact I wish the admin didn't delete the site, I really liked it.

each board that was created had multiple
"parties" that could run for the moderation of the board and I believe the election was weekly

so it wasn't the rules which switched, rather it was the moderators who could run on whatever platform they wished

>>37496994
>>37497325
I guess the first step would be a long campain of trying to reach out to the site admins and consistently having threads where we discuss specifics so that we could have a steady stream of threads discussibng the issue so it's jnot just spamming do this reee.

>>37497388
>Parties
Even if the parties are loose groups of users they still exist as political bodies and present problems secondly
>so it wasn't the rules which switched, rather it was the moderators who could run on whatever platform they wished
The problem with this is if moderators run on whatever platform and can use moderatory powers however they wish then there's not really order. Every time opinion sways slightly or enough dedicated trolls whine then things change. I'm proposing a system that will limit that effect by making rules not people the authority.

>>37497396
I don't think the "site admins" wold find an idea thay would ultimately get the site less traffic too appealing. Hiro very clearly doesn't care about 4chan's quality, but about getting people to click on ads and get 4chan passes to make money. This idea is comfy, but in practive it is just a waste of time

>>37497494
I reject the notion that it would decrease site traffic. 4chan has been slowly dying for a while, and improving the quality of boards while being a short term hit to userbase will allow the userbase to begin growing again.