You are suggesting to manually approve a thread with illegal/harmful content just because you cannot be arsed to make a quick check of the download links.
What on earth is our purpose as moderators if we don't even do the bare minimum to keep users safe?
What exactly is the 'bare minimum'? Are you really suggesting the bare minimum requires a moderation queue where a moderator has to manually approve each post? Do you think that queue should apply to releases, guides, and discussions or a subset of those three forums? Which ones?
For some perspective, there are additional moderation techniques, like adding a delay before posts automatically appear to give moderators time to spot problems or a formal moderation queue but with auto-approval. I am not sure if either of these approaches are available on this forum, but we should at least consider these alternative approaches before going all in on the manual approval moderator queue for all three translation forums.
Fundamentally, there are different moderation approaches. The one suggested by Checkmate earlier
here that creates a welcoming user experience is the "hands off" approach where moderators exist to step in if there is a problem and spot check things. This occasionally involves turning a blind eye to very minor rule violations unless there is a problem. That does not apply to major violations of course. The idea expressed is to not proactively act as a gatekeeper for content because that is a very heavy handed moderation approach that is not as friendly towards end users. I am not interested in doing that because it is harmful to the user experience and takes a lot of moderator time with very few benefits. A very well thought out system with clearly defined rules and places for all content is mostly self-regulating. With the "hands off" approach, there is no role for moderators beyond spot checking things unless there is a problem.
And what the hell are you talking about with user prioritization?
User prioritization means that there are multiple aspects to consider when potentially making and creating guidelines, and when considering such alterations, prioritizing the end user experience is at the top of that list. It is only if there is an extraordinarily compelling reason to compromise that features should be implemented that diminish the user experience. Spam would ultimately diminish the user experience, and so it is valid to create policies that try to combat spam maximally while also affecting the end user experience minimally. Do you think your policies do that or is there a way to impact the user experience even less?
A moderation queue, especially where content must be manually approved instead of a timeout queue where it is posted automatically after a small delay, is a very heavy handed approach to moderation to the point where it negatively impacts the user experience. Users post their content, and nothing happens. Nobody wants to see the thread they worked on disappear into the void and now at the whim of some moderator to approve or disapprove of depending upon how they happen to feel that day. That is the F95 approach which you are taking issue with lately, remember?, and that approach still requires extremely well defined rules with minimal moderator discretion involved, so users are not surprised later. If you dislike your content being at the whim of F95's moderators, why are you trying to duplicate that system here? Why are you trying to post on anime-sharing in the first place? Do your positions regarding implementing a moderator queue and "deduplication" align with those goals?
Another byproduct of vague rules based on "common sense" where you refuse to clearly work out every edge case and eventually or contradictory rules as a negative impact to the user experience.
Obviously a translator, someone who actually contributes is worth more than a normal user.
The translation wouldn't even exist without them.
You are using these words in a very different way that most people do. By "normal user" I think you mean "a user who posts a translation patch they do not claim to have created by MTL or otherwise." By "translator" I think you mean "a user who posts a translation patch they do claim to have created, even if by MTL." These are not very different groups of people, but you are giving one huge prioritization to the point where are you allowing them to claim ownership of other people's threads. How do you think the original thread owners will feel about that?
How
exactly do you differentiate between a "normal user" posting translation patches and a "translator" doing exactly the same thing? Are we just supposed to take their word for it whether or not they are the originator of the patch?
If you are not verifying it, then you are putting moderators in a position where they are obligated to take at face value whatever users say and deal with the resulting fallout when moderators should not be in a position to decide or have to care about this at all. While the forum itself should be welcoming to content creators, individual moderators should not be in a position where it is necessary to decide who is and is not a content creator.
Or if you are not willing to blindly accept whatever they say, then how
exactly do you establish "ownership" of a patch in a concrete way anyway? Is the "owner" of the patch the person who created the translation or the patch?
Let's say one person translated it from scratch, not MTL, another person created the patch based upon output from some software that took them ~5 seconds, and another person created the Normal Release thread and took the time to upload the patch + a second link bundling the patch with the main game. Who did the most work to translate the game? Who is the patch owner there? Who is the rightful owner of the thread there, in your view? If the actual original translator and the creator of the patch both request ownership of the same thread, then who do you tell to piss off? Do you understand how the "no duplicate patches" + ownership transfers puts moderators in a lose-lose situation?
Next is enforcement. Lets say a user is lying about "owning" a patch and requests to take ownership of another user's thread. So now you are putting yourself in the position where you think it is appropriate for a moderator to be an accessory to thread hijacking.
At no point should anyone who is lying be able to take control of another person's thread, get another tread deleted, alter another user's content, links, likes, etc. That is completely unethical from top to bottom. The forum policies should not make this worse but giving some users special privileges to hijack other people's threads.
As Checkmate pointed out, you can't have both no thread hijacking rules that imply Thread Ownership and the existence of a Thread Owner and then also have a "no duplicates" rule. If there are "no duplicates allowed," whatever that means, then everyone must be allowed to post in the same thread. Transferring ownership of threads should not be possible because otherwise you are putting moderators in a position to decide who is the rightful owner which is an unnecessary fight that moderators should not be in a position to decide anyway.
If person A posts a translation patch, and then Person B wants to make a new thread re-uploading that exact translation patch again, I'm just not going to approve the thread.
My response is once again "common sense".
If the file is named the same, has the same size, and the poster of the thread does not tell you how it's different, it's not different, even if the hashes don't match perfectly.
If the file is differently named, but the contents are the same size and neither the new name nor the post explain how it's different. It is not different.
Are you really going to start proactively deleting people's content without any proof of patches being duplicates just because they are similar enough to you based on the vague and undefined policy of "common sense"? Your "common sense" is to default to deleting people's posts and assuming everything is a duplicate without requiring hash-matches. How is that "common sense"? It isn't for me!
Even if they are "patch duplicates," let's say a patch is a hash-duplicate of another patch previously posted by itself, but a second user takes the time to integrate that into the game and uploads both, crediting the source of the patch appropriately. Are you going to delete their thread as a result for being a "duplicate"? What message do you think you are sending to that user who went to the trouble of integrating the patch with the game, creating a well formatted thread, uploading the bundled game to a hosting service, and wanted to be rewarded for their work by having their own thread? Do you think that is an appropriate message to send to users who contribute content, their work, and their links on anime-sharing in general?
Since you are not requiring hash matches to declare one patch the same as another, then your current policy is to delete people's posts if
you think it is a duplicate which now immediately requires a new guideline where Normal Release thread authors must clearly define how their patch is different from every other patch ever released or risk getting their content deleted by a zealous moderator. That rewards people who lie about their patches being unique and hurts those who are just trying to post their patch if someone previously posted anything similar, as defined by you. Without hashing, it is completely impractical to validate whether or not each patch actually is or is not a duplicate because you would have to run it with the game to actually find out if it is a duplicate or not. If you not going to do that, then you are back to blindly believing whatever the user who posted their patch says. If they say "my patch is unique", then there is no alternative but to allow their post. If you do not want to blindly believe them, then you are back to hash matching which you apparently do not want to do.
If someone fixed even just a single typo in the translation and explains that in the post, it's different.
We are not obligated to check if it's true as long as the contents "seem" to match the description and are otherwise allowed on this forum.
So, you are not actually checking if the patches are or are not duplicates then? So after all of your talk about not allowing duplicates you are actually fine with compromising on this just by blindly believing what they say?
More importantly, this is a very different way of defining "duplicate threads" than normal people do. When most people think of duplicate threads, they think of threads that are posting the same game. You are defining "duplicates" as based on the patch which makes it possible to have multiple threads by the same user for the same game and same patch type if they fix a single typo in the patch. If you say this is not allowed, then why
exactly is this not allowed? Having vague undefined policies based around "common sense" is not good enough. You need clear reasons to accept or reject things. So, are duplicates threads based around the concept of duplicate patches or not? Yes, or no? If they are, then this makes it valid for a user to spam 50 threads where each thread is only different by 50 typos.
Where is the issue? Why do you want to allow people to spam 50 threads sharing the exact same thing?
Do you really not see the issue with this? Of allowing people to spam 50 threads of the exact same thing? These threads with matching users + game + patch type can obviously and should be grouped into one thread, but your decision to base duplicates on the patch itself means that you are now in a position of having to require allowing 50 threads if the user claims each patch is different from the others.
Well, have you? Your own core logic contradicts itself by allowing spam. If you disagree, then what is the
exact rational for disallowing those threads?
Even if you add an extra rule to base what is a duplicate on both the patch + the game, then you are still dealing with other users posting the patch integrated with the game in their own threads. How do you intend on handling this? In addition, basing duplicates on the game is not at all a straight-forward solution because now you are dealing with the implementation challenges of both determine unique patches and determining unique games which opens up your system to the criticisms I pointed out
here. Those criticisms do include having moderators pick sides in flame wars which I believe to be inappropriate.
The implementation details DO matter. Saying "common sense" and waving away the rules is not good enough. You need to clearly define each rule or guidance principle and analyze the practical consequences of implementing it. Then that rule or concept has resulting policies where you must check to see if those policies are still workable and ask yourself in every step when crafting them what exact message you are sending to users as a result of that rule or guideline. Are you telling users their content is welcome or are you rejecting the input of users trying to share helpful, relevant translation related content and information? If you are in a position that you must reject such posts, then the system you have created is not very welcoming and hence flawed because it is the entire goal of those forums to cater towards users posting content related to translation and the rules are not allowing that.
Edit: But I guess since I never actually directly said it. As far as I'm concerned full games do not belong in the translation section at all unless a patch is impossible. I do not see why this forum needs another game download section.
But I don't have a rigid position on any of this, I will follow the orders of the admin.
It is necessary to allow people who did not create a patch to post a release there because that is the core point of that entire "Translation Projects & Releases" forum. Not allowing this defeats the entire purpose of it because you would be telling users that have a translation patch that they are not allowed to share the translation patch in a forum dedicated to releasing them. Pushing their content into user-specific threads or the mini-releases thread is not acceptable. Users must be able to publish content as normal threads if they wish to do so because forums exist to accommodating users, not the other way around.
The same is true for people who want to be helpful to other people and bundle the patch with the game, upload it, and then share the link all in one thread along with their patch or based upon an existing patch in the same thread as where that patch was posted. Forums should not punish users who are helpful like that. Sharing such helpful content should not only be allowed, but encouraged.
Do you disagree? Why exactly? How does your position benefit users more in the long run without punishing users trying to be helpful?
Fundamentally, if you dislike the heavy handed moderation on other forums, why are you trying to re-create it here? Let the users who prefer that approach go there. I think we should let anime-sharing be unique and focus on its existing strengths of being a welcoming environment and allowing all sorts of content. That is more ideal than seeking to create rules that prohibit users from releasing translation patches in the translation release forums the way they see fit.
