SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Welcome, new trolls! We're pleased as punch to have you aboard, unfortunately as you may have noticed our moderators are unable to give you the moderations you've been working so hard for. Since we can't really do much about people not moderating more, we're going to be giving out more points so that the ones that do can give you the attention you so desperately crave.
Moderators: Starting a little after midnight UTC tonight, everyone will be getting ten points a day instead of five. The threshold for a mod-bomb, however, is going to remain at five. This change is not so you can pursue an agenda against registered users more effectively but so we can collectively handle the rather large uptick in anonymous trolling recently while still being able to have points remaining for upmodding quality comments. This is not an invitation to go wild downmodding; it's helping you to be able to stick to the "concentrate more on upmodding than downmodding" bit of the guidelines.
Also, this is not a heavily thought-out or permanent change. It is a quick, dirty adjustment that will be reviewed, tweaked, and likely changed before year's end. Questions? Comments?
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:13AM (19 children)
I more or less agree with you but where the community is, there is my opinion (except on matters of moral principle). And around here the community are mostly anonymous.
To be clear though, we're not looking to fix trolling. Trolling is absolutely allowed. We just want it to continue to be modded down when it isn't up to the quality we expect in our trolls around here. That way you can move a drop-down setting and not see trolls if you want or browse at -1 and play with them if that better suits you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:37AM (18 children)
I browse at -1 because I don't like reading replies to comments I haven't seen, and people who reply to trolls are often unmodded or modded up.
But, how difficult would it be to have a -2 option for posts that have only been modded troll (or spam), say five times? I would still browse at -1.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:25AM (14 children)
It would break quite a few things that our coding predecessors coded assuming -1 would always be the comment karma floor. I looked a while back just out of curiosity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:51AM (13 children)
1) Multiple data points per post: separate upmods and downmods at least, perhaps more columns for 0-point mods like disagree. Users to leverage these thresholds as they see fit.
2) Moderation is not anonymous: When we mod a post, our ID should be publicly attached to the mod.
The main problem with moderation is, IMHO, that it's anonymous. If you're going to do something to someone, you should own up to it. I am strongly of the opinion that this would result in better mod behavior. Which in turn would result in a more useful mod system overall - more trustworthy use of thresholds, because they'd be higher quality.
I have no problem with anonymous posts. I read at -1 myself, and the specific reason for that is because moderation isn't trustworthy. It's better here than over on... that other place... because we have a higher moderator ratio. But it's still often obviously a matter of "I disagree" imposed as some kind of -1 mod, rather than the (very good idea of) the actual 0 point Disagree mod.
Anyway; anonymous posts have a good rationale for existing IMHO: unpopular POV or opinion does not map to bad speech. But mods should not be about opinion or POV, they should be about quality. The rationale for allowing anonymous posts doesn't fit well with moderation. Moderation is a hammer; if you're going to use a hammer, you should be willing to own up to it.
FWIW, I think the ten point change is a very good idea. I'd be in favor of going higher yet. There's nothing good about seeing good posts and not be able to mod them up; likewise, nothing good about seeing a pure troll or spam and not being able to mod them down.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:10AM (7 children)
It's quite possible you're correct but currently it's a solution in search of a problem. The extreme majority of moderators upmod four times or more often than they downmod. To the point that looking at the numbers only five people on the entire site who regularly moderate had a downmod percentage of >25%.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:24AM
If I intentionally punch you in the face, but only do it once, is it any less reprehensible than if I do it twice?
Downmod percentages don't address the fact that many downmods are ill-motivated. They just filter for those who are consistent about it.
Also, I wasn't just talking about downmods. Upmods deserve accountability as well, in my view.
You get some right-wing crazy or left-wing crazy or just a general purpose crazy modded up, that's just another form of trolling. In my opinion. :)
And hey... we have a 0-point "disagree", why don't we have a 0-point "agree" mod? Lots of posts I agree with around here. Sometimes. :)))
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:27AM (5 children)
My right column stuff currently reads:
Should that not now say "You get 10 points per day"?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:38PM (4 children)
Refresh browser?
Mine shows 10.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 26 2017, @06:00PM (3 children)
I'm outa mod points now. Shows nothing to me till later. :)
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:35AM (2 children)
Actually, i now show only 5 points per day.
Glitchy!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday September 11 2017, @09:32PM (1 child)
Very belated reply (and it's fixed now), but this is caused by the fact that message is in an HTML template. Templates are cached considerably more than almost anything else, so in the rare occasions we change them, it can sometimes take awhile for the rest of the site to catch up to reality.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday September 11 2017, @09:52PM
I wasn't worried: I feel this site is in better hands (ie: not mine, lol) than most.
Thanks for what you allll do!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:39PM (1 child)
I think anonymous mods have the same rationale as anonymous posting: You're allowed to have your opinion without having negative consequences (such as doxxing and stalking). Modding is really just an opinion sans reply. So Mod-IDing sounds good, but I think would lead to dogpiling on a scale we've never seen -- frex, someone would be seen upvoting Buzzard regularly and would find themselves downmodded into oblivion by Buzzard's detractors.
Besides, do you want to be outed as the guy who always mods up EF? :)
(This same discussion went around on Gab, and eventually Gab decided to keep anonymous mods.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:35PM
It's not just that, but it saves a ton of time not having to deal with frauds like aristarchus jumping on idioms and figures of speech that he's too stupid to understand and then whining about people down modding his shit posts.
Being just an AC means that the post itself gets more attention rather than the poster.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday August 26 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
You like something on Facebook, everyone sees it's you liking it. There's no secret likes. And the Like button is a huge part of their brand. 👍 You see a thumb sticking up, you think Facebook, am I right? I'm right. No thumbs down. They accentuate the positive. Do you like that expression? Because I just thought of it. You can go haha, wow, love, angry or sad. Simple! I'll tell you, Facebook is one of the biggest sites. The CEO is a problem. Mentally, big problems there. But I have to say, very successful site. 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:38AM
Except facebook is shit, man.
"My chef baked too many cookies, so i'm sending you some!"
"I just had a shit!"
"My job sucks"
Yup. Facebook sucks.
Was on there for about 3 months and almost died from the level of shit.
Yeah.
shit.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday August 28 2017, @09:57PM
Gab does separate counts for up and down and it's a nice feature. But we already have that here, if not conveniently -- click on the post number and get to see the list of mods. (I think it's complete... I don't check often enough to be sure.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:35AM (2 children)
If I may interject, although I am a true AC, why not hide complete subtree of discussion initiated by a -1 post? Anyone bothered to open that post should see all the replies, but generally the good replies to a bad initial post are just drawing attention to the bad one. Meaning well, doing the opposite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:32PM (1 child)
Or just let people ignore users that they choose and hide those posts behind a click to reveal. I've seen that done on other sites and it makes the whole thing rather pleasant. I don't generally use it very much, but when somebody's on my nerves, I can easily ignore them until I'm in a better mood.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 27 2017, @05:11PM
Make them a Foe, set Foes to -6, Bob's your uncle.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.