>>38845Feel free to ignore my post. I am simply a long-standing individual of occasional influence and disrepute and these are simply my thoughts.
>To me, this suggests that there is a problem with the communityI share their view of alienation, but I disagree with this conclusion. It is not a matter of the community at large being at fault, but rather the expansion of the community being of a separate lineage from that of Kissu. Kissu stemmed from a particular moment in time on 4/qa/, and every expansion and alteration of Kissu has meant further divergence from what 4/qa/ was, unavoidably so. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not intrinsically bad to cater to a wider audience, and provide more breathing room for other topics by splitting boards. But it fractured the unified identity of /qa/ and created a Kissu identity. That Kissu identity is not a unified one, in my opinion; there are now wide gaps in places to the extent that /jp/ doesn't feel like /amv/ and /amv/ doesn't feel like /qa/. It's not reflective of the community being poor that someone might feel alienated, feeling more aligned to the previous ideals of /qa/ than to the current community which has in large part grown up around Kissu, but was not a part of former 4/qa/.
>proper Kissu atmosphereYou will get a different answer from as many people as you ask. I will refrain from using names to prevent misattributing their beliefs, but the major through-lines of moderation thought are as follows:
¥A calm, and relaxed atmosphere more similar to Kakashi-nenpo. This thinking is the embodiment of "take it easy" and "funpost in fun threads, be serious in serious threads". This thinking would require a more heavy-handed approach to moderation.¥A more chaotic environment similar to what 4/qa/ was like; dueling beliefs in a fast-paced environment. This thinking leans towards much more tolerant moderation, permissive of what the first might wish to remove on-sight.¥An arbitrary environment defined not by what individual users might want, but what is "best" for the site overall. This thinking leads to a paternalistic form of moderation that desires a deferential environment. It can be the most heavy-handed, but also is the most inscrutable and difficult to understand.For large or important decisions these thoughts balance each other, but on an individual post level they largely don't come into play at all expect in abnormal circumstances.
>If you exclusively moderate according to "what the people want", then what is the barrier that shields us from eventually turning into 4chan / social mediaThis is a line of thinking that runs up against the reality that what might be desired is a viewpoint shared by a shrinking number of people. A website that does not change with its userbase is one which is fated to shrink and die. It's unavoidable if there is not a critical mass of users to sustain the website. The fact that some users are individually identifiable is proof that we are not at a critical mass. To survive, Kissu must grow, and to grow means accepting change. If not growth, new users are at least required in great enough numbers to stem the loss of older users.
Those sharing the view that they would like Kissu to be a more "take it easy" place feel particularly at odds with this reality due to the "homogenization of the internet". That is, everywhere feeling like everywhere else because foreign shibboleths (wojakisms, 4chanisms, teenspeak, etc.) are tolerated most places, which dilutes the individual culture of any given website. Going against this trend is possible, but very difficult. It's even more difficult when you consider a Kissu-native population. How would you guard against new foreign shibboleths if you are not exposed to them to know they come from someplace else?
More difficult is how do you moderate them in such a way as not to alienate new users, but also encourage their assimilation? That requires a more hands-off, community-based approach. If you were to delete every template post, every allusion to a wojakism, every shitpost... you would inevitably alienate many users. It may be difficult to understand, but one thing to keep in mind is that it's very possible for a user who is known to make good posts in one area, might slip up and post something someone else would consider bad someplace else. How do you handle situations like that? On net, they're a positive influence, but would you ban them for an occasional reference that might be hostile to an overarching philosophy of Kissu, but is not in and of itself hostile to other users?
It's a very difficult balancing act. That balancing act requires reports to know common sentiment, and without reports it would mean imposing a view that could end up being user-hostile.
>we are just a group of people with different expectations for imageboards and I assume Kissu was made to actually realize those expectationsYes, but again, how do you retain and assimilate the users you want? It is impossible to just put out a calling card and suddenly have the exact userbase you want. They have to find you. That's another area Kissu has struggled with, traditionally being averse to advertising itself and instead relying more on word-of-mouth and the occasional wanderer who finds Kissu another way (typically through meta sites, like GET trackers, and imageboard directory sites).
>especially if it starts to drift off into bullying.The line between community moderation and gatekeeping is fine indeed. I have no rebuttal.
(1/2)