>>162056
Looks like they shot first, the link 404s.

>>162057
Thank God.

Still, it was at 100+ replies so it was up for a while.

>>162058
So, was it not reported?
Was it reported and cleared?
Or, were there no mods online to decide?

>>162059
No idea...

>>162060
I wasn't expecting an answer from you specifically. It was just questions. But we could clear one of them.

Did you report the thread?

>>162061
Yes. Not because I'm a sexually-repressed person who is offended by boobs, but because I'd prefer to see consistency in the rules on this site.

>>162062
Oh, I wasn't asking to work out if you dislike boobs. I just wanted to get some more "data". Not sure why, I'm not a clever pony.

Anyway, you reported the thread and didn't get a "This thread is already in the report list". That shows that nobody reported the thread before you came along. Which probably suggests that nobody present on /oat/ found it lewd enough to actually press the report button.

So unless one of the mods happened to be browsing /oat/ they wouldn't know about it.

>>162063
Shouldn't a mod always be browsing?

>>162064
Ideally yes, but now that Artee is not a mod, I don't think we have anyone who can consistently be up during the wee hours of night/early morning.

>>162065
I volunteer!

>>162064
Perhaps?

But I also think it is interesting that there might be a difference in what the people browsing /oat/ are ok with and what the rules say is ok.

>>162065
That used to be me as well, but then I traded in my sleep schedule for something more reasonable.

>>162068
I demand you be on 24/7.
>>162067
Yea, well until they explicitly change the rule about sexual content I'm going to support having all sexual threads removed.

>>162069
And that's fine. I'm just trying to add stuff other than "why don't mods do things?!".

>>162068
So Fenny is the only European on the moderator team these days?

>>162065
Hmmm, in retrospect, with me and Thirtyfour stepping aside, there is a gnaw in the amount of available Euromods.

>>162071
It hasn't been too bad yet. It's not nearly as noticeably currently as it was back when the porn-spam happened more often.

edit: I to It...

Last edited at Fri, Oct 3rd, 2014 11:02

>>162061

I didn't report the thread, but I did post in it to point out that as it stood it was against the rules. I thought maybe there could be actual discussion about breast cancer awareness month, but in the end it was pretty much just an image dump for tits. I could've reported it later, but instead I went downstairs to play Hyrule Warriors all morning.

>>162071
>>162072

And yeah, today was mostly an exception, and I thought that you stepping down could get filled in by the rest of the staff, but school did start up again and at least a couple of mods are engaged in all that sort of business. While it's not a trend yet, perhaps it should be headed off before it becomes a trend this time, rather than left to fester for months like last year.

>>162064
No, which is why the site needs janitors.

>>162066
You just stated in the OP that you're a repeat offender in this field, why would anybody ever consider you a viable candidate?

>>162073
Astra and Admiral do an amazing job on it, though.

>>162074
I've always liked the idea of janitors. Much easier to find people that would make good janitors than would make good mods.

>>162070
>>162071
Sleep is overrated.

>>162073
>>162076
It's something to think about, would probably be worth doing a trial period (At the very least) at some point since my day's off continue to be sporadic as hell.

I nominate zamoonda.

>>162077
So I hear, I quite like it though.

>>162076
If only our admins were around to make this happen.
Oh
Wait

>>162079
Don't you remember that even in this quote/unquote new system that big decisions and hires still have to be run by the owner.

>>162080
I'm sort of expecting Inkwell wouldn't oppose much.

>>162081
That uh, doesn't change the fact.

>>162076

I still don't understand the difference. Mods now have four official duties, and I'm not sure which ones wouldn't apply to janitors.

>>162083
Banning people that aren't spambots. Deleting threads that aren't spambots. Moving threads that aren't really obviously in the wrong place.

>>162084

Ah, that makes sense then, I suppose.

>>162068
Clearly what we need to do is ruin all the mod's lives so they can spend all day on Ponychan

>>162086

I'm not sure why we didn't do that in the first place, honestly.

...i used to be up in the wee hours of the morning, too. i still am...

...as for the janitor discussion, it is often brought up. i don't think it will work though. what is proposed as a "janitor" position is literally all a moderator ever does anyhow... except arbitrarily lesser.

>>162093
They wouldn't have to get caught up in all the "drama".

Perhaps... That is one of the benefits I see.

>>162093
Except for the moderating part.

If somebody posts something that is without question against the rules, like gore or childporn or Extenze advertisements, they delete it and issue a ban. That's all. A janitor can't come into a thread and tell people to stop arguing, they can't come to /meta/ and explain to salty folk why they got banned, they can't act on any of the vague poorly written rules that are entirely up to moderator judgement, they can't see user IPs or detect ban evading(?), etc.

>>162086
way ahead of you

>>162094

most mods dont put their name behind what they do anyway

instead of janitors we should just get a mod or two that are actually around at that time of day. and get rid of ones that dont do much

>>162097
I'm not good with words.

I think janitors would be an ok thing as they have clear cut rules for what they can/should do and they don't have to feel like they need to do more than that one job.

Mods, even with the restructuring of things still have to take part in the "fuzzy" stuff.

And even if they did something like hire/fire mods, who's around at that time and are any of those people "mod material"?

>>162096
that feel

>>162074
I never said I was a repeated offender. Learn to read. I said I've posted thread of sexual nature in the past. I don't do it anymore.

now instead ur posts are just roundly bad

which now that i think about it would make you the perfect artee replacement

>>162105
>>162106
I volunteer.

>>162106
What's with the constant hateboner?

>>162108

I don't hate him, he's just a low-hanging fruit

>>162104
>I've made threads such as this in the past that were deleted for sexual content
The (s) at the end of the word thread meaning several, and that more than one of these thread(s) were found to be breaking the rules and deleted, that makes you a repeat offender. Dumb ho.

>>162110
You said "you're a repeated offender," instead of "you were a repeated offender." I don't break rules anymore.

>>162111
Okay? You have many times before, and past tense doesn't apply to a record. But instead of letting you drag something meaningless into a dozen posts of false groundless semantics that you came up with on the spot, I'm just going to sit back and watch.

>>162112
>he said, after having already not just sat back and watched

>>162113
But it's only been two posts, not a dozen, KID.

>>162084
Also flagging posts that the jani think requires a ban.

>>162095
Janitors usually cant ban for longer than 15 minutes, but i cant actually check that because the actual janitor position is broken at the moment, inkwell probably canabalised it for his !!owner / !!dev tag bollocks.

>>162154
well then obviously you should just add on a couple janitors and make them owners and devs!