SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update 20190127_200249 UTC: corrected number of downmods to qualify for mod bomb from 4 to 5. Clarified that no mod bans have been handed out in a long while. --martyb]
Our primary goal at SoylentNews is to provide a forum for the community; In as much as is reasonably possible, we try to take a hands-off approach.
The infrastructure provides a means by which the community can (among other things) vote on polls, publish journal articles, submit comments, and perform moderations.
There are, however, some things that require an active role by the admins.
One of these is dealing with moderation abuse, something which can come in different forms. See the FAQ for some background. Addressed there are "mod bombs" and "spam mods". A mod bomb is deemed to have happened when one user (user1) has performed 4 5 or more downmods against comments by another user (user2). Upon review, if a mod bomb has been found to occur, then the moderator (user1) gets a 1-month mod ban on the first occasion; 6 months on the second and subsequent times. Mod bans have not been issued in a LONG while; extra mods are reversed.
Sockpuppets: And now we come to the focus of this article: there is another form of moderation abuse: sockpuppet accounts. Wikipedia has a suitable description:
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[1]
The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] to manipulate public opinion,[3] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[4] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.
Right here I'll admit that I was sorely tempted to take unilateral action. Name names. Apply mod bans. And... you get the idea. Instead, I'm trying to take the high road. So, instead, I chose to present what I found to the community, solicit input, and then see what, if anything, needs to be done.
There may well be other cases, but the one I have discovered shows this history of upmods. Out of the 100 most recent moderations performed by "user1", 80 of those have been upmods of the same user "user2". And of these, there have been 10 upmods on January 21, 10 more on January 22, and yet 10 more on January 23. (For those keeping score that is 30 points in 3 days).
I cannot imagine in any way that 30 upmods in three days by "user1" on "user2" is reasonable or desirable.
This would be purely academic except that comment moderation affects a user's karma. All registered users start with a karma of 0. Submitting a story that is accepted on the site earns 3 points. Each upmod to a comment of yours earns a point. Similarly, each downmod deducts a point from your karma. Get enough karma and when posting a comment you can give it extra visibility so that it starts at a score of 2 instead of at 1. (Comments posted anonymously or by ACs start at 0.) Get a low enough karma and you earn a "timeout" against posting comments for a month.
Inasmuch as "user1" was able to perform 80 upmods of "user2" in 19 days ("user2" had hovered near the karma cap of 50 when this all started), that means that "user2" received approximately 80 downmods from the community. Excluding the actions of our sockpuppet ("user1"), "user2" should have been in negative karma and thus in a month-long "timeout".
What I see is that the community has spoken (the comments posted by "user2" are not of the kind the community wants to see on the site) and that has been intentionally countered by the sockpuppet activity of "user1".
Rather than the admins taking a unilateral action, I am asking the community what should be done in this case (and any others like it that may come up)?
I offer a proposal that is analogous to our handling of a "mod bomb."
What is a mod bomb? Four (4) or more downmods in 24 hours by "user1" against comments posted by "user2". qualifies as a mod bomb and earns "user1" a 1-month moderation ban (initially; subsequent mod bombs earn a 6-month mod ban) It's been a long time since mod bans have been issued..
Proposed: Four (4) or more upmods in 24 hours should also be considered a mod bomb (sock bomb?) and should receive the same treatment.
The point of moderation is not to bestow karma points, it is to help improve the visibility of well-written comments and reduce the visibility of the lesser ones. The karma is simply an incentive to actually perform the moderations.
I've toyed with various values for number of upmods per unit of time (4 per day? 20 per week?) I keep coming back to the same metric we use for our existing "mod bomb" definition: 4 down mods in one 24-hour span that commences when mod points are handed out at 00:10 UTC.
So, now it's your turn. I'd appreciate your feedback and thoughts on this. If we should choose to implement it, it would probably have a soft launch with any "violations" being met with a warning.
Ultimately, it's your site. How do you want us to deal with sockpuppets?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Friday January 25 2019, @01:48PM (10 children)
User #1 did 80 Up Mods in 19 days. And with the new "rule", User #1 could only do 76 Up Modes in 19 days. Because, 4 times 19 is 76. Same amount of time, 4 less Up Mods. Or, User #1 could do the 80 Up Mods in 20 days. Instead of 19 days. One more day. Because 4 goes into 80 20 times. Does that make sense? Does that make sense? And I would say, that's a very small change. Sounds like a nothing.
And maybe it will block the person Martyb wants blocked. Maybe it will block other people. And possibly it won't block anybody. It's great that he asked about doing the new "rule." And I think he should run for Congress. Because that's how Congress does things. They're not allowed to make a "law" -- for or against -- about one person. Or one Company. They call it the Bill of Attainder. But, they write a "law" in a very special way. So that only one person (Company) gets the benefit. Or the punishment. They're very smart about that. And this is a very smart move. That's the kind of thinking we want!!!
(Score: 4, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Friday January 25 2019, @02:24PM (6 children)
(cont) The H-1B visa, very special visa and we have so many people immigrating under that one. And the Companies are only supposed to ask for those visas when they have a job, but there's no American that can do it. And wants to do it. In other words, when they can't find an American for that job.
But the way it "works" so many times is, there are plenty of Americans that can do the Job. But, the Company doesn't WANT an American for that job. They want a Foreigner. Because when they bring somebody in on the H-1B, that Foreign Worker is almost like a slave. Very expensive, very difficult for him to quit and go someplace else. So he keeps his mouth shut. And does what he's told. So the Companies have a very special trick. When they have a job opening, they look overseas first. They find a Foreign Worker they like. They get his resume'. And they write their classifieds Ad, their job listing, with what they find in his resume'. Even stuff that has nothing to do with the job. That guy "qualifies" and of course he applies. The Company is hoping nobody else applies, because they don't "qualify." And maybe somebody applies anyway, right? They look at his resume', they turn him down for a phoney reason, they do a new classified Ad. Until that Foreign Worker is the only guy that answers.
And this new "rule" is a little bit like that. They have somebody in mind. The Problem Person. And they came up with the "rule" that, they hope, will get that person blocked. And if it doesn't block that person, they'll come up with some more "rules." Until they get what they want. And it's funny, because they could just ask "oh, we think So-and-So is a big problem, should we do the Block?" Or the Ban. But instead they want to make the "rule." And the "rules" keep piling up.
I'm doing a lot of regulation "busting." As I promised. I asked my staff for the Hard Copy of the regulations we had in 1960. When our Country was 171 years old. 171 years of Regulations. And the ones we've gotten since then. Much less years, less time. But much more Regulations -- Clean Air Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Americans w/Disabilities Act, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act -- it never ends. And we're moving very strongly on, less regulation. The regulation "busting." With tremendous success. And possibly SoylentNews could be much more successful by repealing some "rules." With less "rules." Instead of more!!!
(Score: 5, Touché) by kazzie on Friday January 25 2019, @02:36PM
With a long post like that, I can see why you're over here, and not on twitter.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 25 2019, @03:27PM (4 children)
Oooooh - you just kinda skirted around one of my peeves. "Hard copy". Idiots are always asking for "hard copy", and don't even know what "hard copy" means. In 1960, hard copies were pretty common. You're handed a form to fill out. It's 3, or 7, or 15 papers thick. On top, an onion skin, next a thin pink paper, then a white paper, a yellow paper, maybe a blue paper, and so on. Any number of thin papers, all bound together at one edge. And, the last page of that form was a thin piece of cardboard-like thick paper - the "hard copy". The onion skin went to legal, the pink paper went to my secretary, the white paper went to your secretary, etc ad nauseum. And, the hard copy went into somebody's working archive.
Nowadays, when some dummy asks for a "hard copy", what he means is a standard computer printer paper.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 25 2019, @06:25PM (2 children)
Sorry about your usage, but hard copy has referred to printout in my lexicon, and that of the place I worked, since around 1980. Possibly earlier, as I learned the term from my first professional boss. (OTOH, we didn't use it in college, so I've no idea how widespread that usage was.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @04:57AM (1 child)
We are all sorry, sincerely, about Runaway's age. And the accompanying dementia. Onionskin! "As was the fashion at the time, I wore an onionskin on my belt. Get off my Moon, you younglings!"
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday January 26 2019, @05:38PM
Runaway1956 has dementia? I'm not that far behind him I don't think. Dammit.
As such I may be able to provide some perspective.
I suspect you are confusing 'dementia' and the natural crusty "I don't give a sh*t-ism" of more ..uh.. 'seasoned' individuals who don't mind calling a bowl a bowl(*).
.
.
.
.
* -- the phrase "To call a spade a spade" or "to call a spade a bloody shovel" was a mistranslation of a Greek saying "To call a bowl a bowl." It has the basic meaning of speaking plainly and calling things as they are without euphemism or over-sensitivity to feelings, to the verge of rudeness. Due to the erroneous conflation with the 20th century use of 'spade' as a racial epithet, I defer here to the original Greek phraseology. Hopefully this doesn't cause problems with the 420 crowd.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @09:18PM
Language evolves over time? MADNESS!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Friday January 25 2019, @11:01PM
Hmmm. I've never hit that 4 downmod limit that I'm aware of, but if not I've probably come close.
The upbomb thing seems more problematic from my perspective - I could well have hit that.
I'll rabbit hole sometimes. I'll just randomly get interested in someone because I liked what/how they said something and say to myself, 'self, maybe you should friend this person? Go see if you find their other posts similarly interesting and if so, click the friend button.' So having been advised to go do this by someone I trust implicitly, I promptly troll through some of their old posts and likely upmod a few of them as I go, on account of finding their posts twere brillig in the first toves is the whole reason i'm stalkering them anyhow. When all's said and done, maybe i friend them, or maybe I don't. But i could see some potential for hitting upmod bomb limit :-\
Sooo, is AC considered one user? :-)
I suppose knowing of rules around this I could restrain myself.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @04:38AM
Don't go asking me. I opined we should lock every account and block every IP the person had ever used. I'm downright cranky when I'm sick, which is why I'm staying out of the discussion aside from a bit of drive-by grouchiness.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @04:42AM
Ahem...
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.