By whom? The Mods? Sure they got all the power but I don't think they abused it.


Which makes it an inherently bad idea because of the many different cultures we have on this board.


I don't see why the current system is inflexible. The Mods still have the last word on anything. That's how it is supposed to be.


What? No that's wrong. Not all systems are arbitrary, what are you talking about? You will have at least a common philosophy if the mods decide it like they do now.

Don't push this on the user base. If there's interest in an image, normally someone will rise up to help improve it. With the Forum messaging system they can exchange tipps and then reupload the improved image. It worked in the past, it will in the future.

There's absolutely no reason to battle this out like this. Just tell the artist why it will be removed, what he needs to improve and give him pointers. He can also ask in the Forum. What more do you need. I mean come on, you cannot babysit everyone that's posting an image here. A lot of ppl are already very helpful.

I really don't see this changing anything or improving the situation. Sorry.

HypnoMangaEditor - Yes, you're definitely correct. Our system is fine in the fact that we can remove images. The problem isn't that we can't do that, nor is it the potential backlash from the artist and supporters for doing so. The problem is that the current system has an arbitrary threshold needed to be met in the defense of an image that us admins ourselves are not supposed to or allowed to oppose* under normal circumstances. This threshold has no "perfect number", so it's impossible to balance. As such, the current system allows a few people defending an image (as few as 2 and as much as 5) to force it to pass on a judgment, regardless of how many dislike the image or if it's even any "good".

* - Our original QC system was "we think this looks pretty bad, it's gone." We tried to be objective about it, as much as one can even be toward an entirely subjective piece. However, it was short lived. The early member base spoke up. They didn't like that admins had total control over what stayed and what didn't and that they didn't have any say. As we wanted this site to be as much about the community as it was about the porn, we implemented the current system, which sets how the process works, so that even the admins cannot overrule the decision decided with the process. To do so would defeat the point of the process to begin with. In addition the "new" system (the one we use now) would allow users to ensure that they had their say and to overrule the administrations' decision if they felt strongly enough to do so.

C) this still kind of makes it into a closed vote system
B) I don't feel 24hrs is enough, as there have been times when I haven't had time to sign on for 3 days. This also potentially has my direct democracy problem of a close majority making a large amount unhappy
A) at best, this turns it into a sort of school debate team - at worst, it's not how good a point you make or how many people agree with that point, but how well you can form an argument and split it into multiple points

Perhaps I used the word "abused" too readily. I mean that it's easy for users to overturn a mod's decision while others are not considered. The mods have a problem with this which is why they want the system to be improved.

As i said conflict is certainly an issue with my idea but if the user base remains as civil as it is and the mods properly moderate that should be easy to both avoid and resolve.


The mods would have the last word in any system but they still currently abide by the points system they instated way back in the time of the booru.


I meant all systems that could be applied to QC on this site. I don't totally grasp the idea of the "common philosophy" to which you are referring but I feel that the mods don't want to be the center "acceptable thoughts and opinions" which is what anything common tends to lead to. Although I could be wrong. This is HypnoHub the secret quasi internet cult slowly climbing the chain to global domination! :P Monarchical mindsets are fine but I prefer things to be more free and liberal letting the people decide. *slaps self in the face* *looks in the mirror in shock of what they've become*


Change is good.... You must... embrace it...


In all serious what you say here really makes me hope that the "preliminary_art" tag and policy are implemented. It would make it so that new artists can keep their work on the site which would give more people a chance to offer advice. I think it should be fine as long as we limit the amount of preliminary artwork that can be uploaded at a time and in general per artist.


Not all change is obvious. You might be okay with how things are now but if the site had been started with another system trying change it to this one who knows how any of us would feel about it?
Any system will have it's flaws just as this one but while their are conservatives like you there are also people who might appreciate a new well thought out idea that seeks to consider their input and make the site they love run more smoothly. I believe the problem at hand is that there are some who don't feel like there input actually matters. I can understand that so that's why I support the change.

To think I'd be so brutally ninja'd.

I don't know what you mean by closed vote system.

I think increasing the days might be a good idea just to be somewhat fair to less active members but I don't want the QC to cater to those who are hardly on.

I think if the mods can group similar points into one that would solve problems like people breaking down the same point into multiple ones. For instance if someone has a problem with an images are and it's foot then those two points would be grouped into one point of a problem with the anatomy.

Lillytank, the problem with your idea is that it adds far too much complexity. Too much complexity in a system makes no one want to use it. It shouldn't require any real effort to keep track of and it certainly shouldn't be difficult to use.

Besides, I don't like the idea of splitting people into obvious groups of two like this: those who want an image and those who don't. If people want to make their opinions on the matter known, then that's fine, but this would funnel people into feeling like they have to make their opinions public or they can't take part. Sure, we could moderate the process to ensure that nothing gets out of hand, but just because we warned a few members that started fanning flames and maybe cleaned up a few negatively argumentative posts does not mean that all the negative feelings felt by the users toward other users are suddenly gone. The end result of a system such as this is a more cynical, less accepting community, user to user. At least, that's how I'm convinced it would work out.

All in all, whenever possible, I like to follow the KISS method. "Keep It Simple, Stupid."

Vanndril, sorry to say this, but what the hell were you guys thinking when you implemented that new system?

You guys observe for the good of the community. We can't have you guys get overturned and then not be able to undo it. This isn't a democracy. Democracy doesn't work in the Internet.

I am not saying "rule with an iron fist", but lead responsibly. You can listen to other people and listen you should. Every Voice matters - not every voice has the same weight, but you know, keeping communication open is a good thing.

You guys need to have the last word in this. You cannot let the mod position be run (or overrun) by the community. You cannot lead by a common philosophy if you get overturned when 2-5 people do not like it. How could you even think for a single second that this was a good idea? Having trust in the community is one (often very stupid) thing to have, but this is on a whole different level.


This gives me headaches. A user should NEVER be allowed to overturn a mods decision, BY ANY MEANS. Overturns should only be able to be done by either the mod that did the action, or a higher ranking mod.


You need someone who has a neutral look at the community and acts accordingly. He/She cannot be chained to a system that let's a decision be overturned by the mere whim of a couple of users.

What I mean with Philosophy is a certain mindset you have for acting accordingly. It helps to write down 2-3 own guidelines for looking at pictures and asking these questions over and over until you come to a resolution about it. MODERATORS HAVE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THEIR ACTIONS. This also means they have the firm believe that what they do is right. Implementing a system which lets their decision be easily overturned makes them look weak and without resolve, not believing in that they did the right thing.


Not every change is good. This is a chant used by weak minded people that do not want to think for themselves. Look at what gets changed and not look at what you have. Think. Decide.


So, you want to limit all users posting rights just to manage with a tag that shows that a picture is under judgement?


I know how I would feel about it. I've been moderating for the majority of my life. I've been earning my money with it for almost a decade now. Over the course of that time I had to make many decisions. Most of them right, some of them wrong. But they were my decisions and I always did them for the good of the community I am working for. I am also listening to them. But I never once thought about letting them or their friends decide to overturn my decisions.


Yeah that sounds good, until you realize that it is a BAD IDEA to host a site, be responsible by any law applicable and let that site be run by the users and not a dedicated moderation team.

There's also the thing that a team that is dedicated to a task is more efficient and users sometimes just do not care - but mods always do. It's their job.

Vanndril and Mindwipe - please do not take this personal, but I have a serious question: Are you both sick of moderating this site? Because if, there will surely be people that will take up the sceptre and do it.

I like this site. Please don't maneuver it into an iceberg. :(

I see, well then I'll try to come up with something else.

Just putting it out there that us admins are in council for what to do about this as we speak. Hopefully we'll come to a conclusion soon, and hopefully no one will hate us for making it. :P

I'd love to go back to the old system.

What ever you choose it will be what you feel is in the best interest of the site and I don't think anyone will be mad.

So, after a few hours of conversing about it (I posted my last post an hour into the meeting), we've decided to overhaul our QC system entirely. We will be attempting to set up a council system. 5 people will be chosen by certain criteria (whether they're an artist/manipper or not, whether they're seen in good light by most of the community as far as we see, whether they are shown to be able to write proper critiques, and the like) and placed on the Quality Control Council, QCC for short. We have 5 people in mind already, if they will accept the positions. For empty positions, well, we'll probably hold open volunteering, like we do for IRC moderators.

Here's how it will work, simply:

* Step 1: One of the admins put an image up for judgment. Publicly, via comments - the same way it's done now. The image under judgment will be linked to and noted in a new forum thread, to ease noticing that it's up for judgment.

* Step 2: The council will each individually look at the image, making their own decision on it however they might do so; by critique or otherwise. They can talk to one another. Every other user may bring up their own thoughts as well if they wish, as it may help the council come to a decision.

* Step 3: When all 5 council members vote, the results of that vote decide the fate of the image.

* Note 1: The administrators will retain the sole right to bring an image to judgement.

* Note 2: The rule that allows an image to pass judgment if half the administrators think the image is fine remains. In this way, administration can overrule the decision of the council and keep other administration in check.

* Note 3: The QCC members will not have a special user rank or special privileges in the site. The only "power" they have over that of other members is their position on the council. They are not moderators.

I'll be making another forum thread about this shortly.

This sounds great

I hope so. It adds a little more control back into the hands of the administration (which should help sate HME's worries :P) while still having a system to keep us in check. The only difference is that not everyone has a direct impact on the outcome of a judgment. Instead, users are allowed to state their opinions freely and, simply by having done this, they may end up swaying a few members of the QCC one way or the other, especially if said members are having trouble deciding.

In this way, the community still has a say, though it's not as rock solid as before; the administration hold more solid control, but no one admin can truly go overboard in a moment of weakness due to having a 3'rd admin now (yay Henry!); etc.

I was worried about the council system before, but there truly was no better option.

By the way, I made the aforementioned thread about the new QC system <<hypnohub.net/forum/show/8139|here>>.

Oh, and to answer your earlier question, HME...



I can't say about Mindwipe, but I imagine he's too picky to NOT want to be in control of certain things of the site. Namely the tag creation and whatnot. XD

As for me, well, I can speak for myself:
It does become a bit of a grind, sometimes, but, all in all, it's enjoyable. It is time consuming, but rewarding, and although I sometimes wish for a simpler relationship with the site, I do thoroughly enjoy administrating it, despite the problems.