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: 5, Interesting) by gawdonblue on Friday January 25 2019, @01:45PM (40 children)
In the past I might have up-modded the same user 4 times in a day when they've been on a bit of a roll - interesting/insightful/informative or funny are the mods I mostly make - but there's no way I'm anyone's sockpuppet.
Aren't we encouraged to up-mod and, given we don't really have a huge pool of commenters aren't we likely to give some people multiple up-mods in a 24 hour period?
I'd hate anyone to get caught up in this and be banned for trying to do the right thing. Being punished as a "sock-bomber" when that isn't the reality would definitely make someone question whether to remain as a lurker or whether to just quit the site altogether.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kazzie on Friday January 25 2019, @02:08PM (6 children)
This mirrors my thoughts.
When moderating, I don't tend to pay much attention to the author of a post: if I think it's a good post, I'll mod it up. If this sort of system were in place*, I'd feel pressured to start checking who's posts I'm promoting, for fear of accidentally upmodbombing. It would get rid of the impartiality I try to apply: moderate the content, not the person.
Downmods are another matter: I do them far less often (I doubt I've ever done four to any group of people in a day), so I don't have to worry about accidental transgressions. I do, of course, think seriously befor applying any downmod.
*with the proposed limits
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kazzie on Friday January 25 2019, @02:11PM (3 children)
A further thought: sending 4 out of 5 moderating points to the same person unintentionally is relatively unlikely. But as we now get ten points a day, it's easier to give 4 points to a person without noticing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday January 25 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)
Hence my humble contribution: If there has to be a limit, make it higher, like 7 or 8.
I may have accidentally given 5 or more points in a day to some of the most prolific posters around here, because they occasionally do deserve it.
Conversely, I have most likely already downvoted obvious trolls and spam more than 3 or 4 times in the same thread. (VIM guy going 10x redundant comes to mind)
Another idea (I didn't read the comment below yet) might be to limit the full 10 points a day to people in good Karma standing and with enough posts/stories (many of us are above the 1k post threshold).
A further idea, but that sounds like more coding, could be to keep a tally, as per the example, and prevent User2 from modding User1 more than $X times per $period
BUT, two observations:
1) It's not so bad that just reading posts without knowing about sockpuppets, made me wonder. Sure, the crazy over-the-top paranoid posts are often unsettling and upmodded, but I chalked this up to a subgroup agreeing with each other.
2) It's f___ing Soylentnews, people ! I know some people buy followers on twitter or FB, but faking self-importance on SN ? What's the bloody point ? You ain't gonna get money or fame from posting here, and if everyone downvotes you, get a clue and change how you write or go write it elsewhere...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday January 25 2019, @08:31PM
I'll be dropping +10 mod points on this!!
Kidding aside -- this is a good perspective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27 2019, @11:29AM
I can't say I've ever really taken notice of who I'm modding
Except ethfuel and maybe a couple of other usernames
I guess the system could show a counter next to someone's name to show how many times per day someone from your IP has modded that account?
EthFule (+2)
AC (-1)
RandomPrickWithAPoint (+1)
Then if someone persists on modding from the same IP then they are either warranted or deliberately crossing a line.
Of course, then people will just change IP addres. But then what do you do.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday January 25 2019, @03:25PM
However, I still don't think I've ever been the subject of a mod ban, other than when we only had 5-points a day and I'd managed to burn through them, as the Mod dropdowns are always there. Stats and other moderators who get there first should even it out, so the chances of hitting the cap unless you're deliberately targetting someone are probably slim. That indicates to me that the approach is probably good, but the threshold for a ban for upvoting a sockpuppet might need tuning depending on how other posters moderate. Four might work for Downmods, but some posters do tend get on a roll and post a lot of up-vote worthy posts in quick succession and maybe five, six, or even more might be the necessary threshold there. I probably go with four to start and see how it goes for a bit then do another Meta discussion for feedback - if a lot of people are complaining they're getting unwarranted bans, then up the cap.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 25 2019, @03:33PM
Ditto that. I've often moderated a comment up or down, then looked back, to find that I don't (or do) like the person who made the post, and maybe I wouldn't have modded that way had I known who posted.
I *think* that is a good thing. You're not supposed to shoot the messenger, right? Shoot the message instead.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 25 2019, @02:14PM (19 children)
I thought there was a plan to simply disable putting more than 4 up/down mods on the same user per day (though that would not stop sock puppet modding that uses multiple accounts).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday January 25 2019, @02:28PM (11 children)
You don't gotta worry about that sockpuppet shit with me. Not only am I predictable, but have a brand to uphold. But in the meantime I can draw the fire from sockpuppets so that they waste their points. Because I'm the hero Soylentnews deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So they'll hunt me. Because I can take it. Because I'm not your hero. A dickhead knight.
(Score: 5, Touché) by kazzie on Friday January 25 2019, @02:40PM (9 children)
Cool, so where do we buy the t-shirts?
(Or for this article, maybe some special edition socks...)
(Score: 5, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 25 2019, @04:32PM (7 children)
I'm pretty sure it's underwear - soiled tighty whities would seem to fit the brand.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 25 2019, @07:48PM (5 children)
I know you're trying to be funny, but that just brings up disturbing thoughts in my mind. Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burusera [wikipedia.org] Now, you can be equally disturbed, enjoy!
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @09:41PM (4 children)
That is the point. Do you not find EF's racist trolling disturbing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @01:59PM (3 children)
What racist trolling?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @02:56PM (2 children)
Someone who says racist things because they know it'll get a rise out of people rather than because they genuinely believe them and are trying to convince anyone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27 2019, @11:24AM (1 child)
I was asking for specific examples..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 28 2019, @05:13AM
His journal entry on The Brown Menace was a bit of a classic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 25 2019, @11:25PM
Tighty whities were discussed some time back here [soylentnews.org]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Hyper on Saturday January 26 2019, @07:34AM
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FunTShirt [tvtropes.org]
http://archive.exiern.com/comic/its-easier-when-you-can-read/ [exiern.com]
:p
Several sites do design your own shirts now.
(Score: 2) by SunTzuWarmaster on Friday January 25 2019, @02:59PM
Notably - you have been the target of up-mod-bomb from me in the past. I'm also not a sock puppet, but a relatively quiet real person (14 posts in the last 6 months?) with only one account. For the most part, I don't usually have anything to say beyond what has been said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @02:46PM (5 children)
Posting the rules just means that the duckheads find a way around them
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @03:09PM (4 children)
Secret rule by a cabal would obviously be the superior choice!
/s
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday January 25 2019, @07:10PM (3 children)
The secret court will contact you when you break the secret law, consider evidence you do not have access to, and will render a classified judgement.
Oppa Gitmo-style!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday January 25 2019, @07:32PM
Now I agree with this, to a certain extent. Of course that depends on the entire chain of command on up to be trustworthy, fair, and of sound and impartial-but-realistic judgement. And, as somebody who went by the handle Zleader told me long ago on 4chan, the entire chain of command has to be trustworthy. Unfortunately, the only modern ecosystem in which you're going to find that kind of consistency is the federal government of the Sentinel Islands. They don't call it "Sentinel" for nuthin'.
On an unrelated note, even the mighty Linux kernel is vulnerable to fifth-columnists should it become big enough to warrant enough attention.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Friday January 25 2019, @09:42PM (1 child)
Star Chamber Modding?
Just what we need, not.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 26 2019, @06:34PM
Kafka mod-banning. He's not a bug, he's feature!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday January 25 2019, @08:11PM
Sounds reasonable. Maybe have an x-times-in-a-row limit in addition to, or instead of x-per-day. Then just add a couple of new error pages.
You already gave user1 x up-mods, get a room!
You already gave user1 x down-mods, stop grinding that axe!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @02:41PM (5 children)
In case anyone cares, I am not a sock puppet for Azuma.
If that isn't obvious.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 25 2019, @05:40PM (4 children)
The SHA2 hashes for IP addresses will prove it. I need no sock puppets; I fight this battle alone. Always have, always will.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @07:36AM
Omfg they know which stories I have posted!!
*runs*
Perhaps I should just post from an account :(
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:01PM
Confirmed. As currently does everyone on the site except one asshat.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:50PM (1 child)
SHA2 hashes of IP numbers? Isn't it easy to use a rainbow table on them?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @06:44PM
For IPv4, yes. Utterly impossible for IPv6. We'd have to wipe our backup server to hold the IPv4 table on account of it not being possible to fit on any of our servers except that one but it's technically doable. It'd be easier to just put a line or two of code in to dump the uid/address combos to a new db table. You're not anonymous to us staff folks because of any code, you're anonymous to us because we do not want to know. What we don't know, we can't be made to tell anyone. Even with a $5 wrench.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 25 2019, @04:04PM
That's why I think any algorithm / system that's implemented should include a "human in the loop" layer.
Especially if the algorithm is published, it will be gamed and abused by those so inclined (i.e. those with far more time on their hands than I have). Putting a human in the loop would at least reduce the predictability of response and make false positive abuse ID much less likely.
In the example you point out, I'd say that you should be flagged for moderator review, then the moderator can see you're not a bad sockpuppet and flag your account to ignore X future sockpuppet flags before you pop up in their review queue again. Or, if you're really an evil sockpuppet, they can take appropriate action and/or set you on the short leash to review you again the next time you start sockpuppeting.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 25 2019, @04:30PM (3 children)
I came here to say the same thing. i would hate to get caught up in this by innocently using moderation without any intention of breaking the rules. Either up modding or down modding.
Maybe the rule of the 4 up/down mods in 24 hours should have some additional qualification such as your history, karma, how often you get modded Funny, Inciteful, etc.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 25 2019, @07:21PM (2 children)
Well, you don't have mod points if you don't have enough Karma...
I'm still try wrap my head around the dedication required to create enough accounts and post enough comments to have enough Karma to start sockpuppetting (Firefox suggests "uppercutting". I like it).
Why do you bother, people ? How many people bother ? Is this really epidemic enough to warrant a systematic solution, rather than a monthly "odd behavior report" with 20 lines in it for the mods to apply brains to ?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 25 2019, @08:42PM
Back in the day, on Y! SCOX, I had, well, I had a friend, yeah, that's it, a friend with, let's just say hundreds of accounts. That bored was a cesspool.
But I have exactly one account on SN.
Obviously it requires dedication to maintain numerous accounts. Or good software tooling in a language that makes this sort of thing easy. Keeps track of the cookies for each account. Login in, log out, etc. But the whole thing can be like a rube goldberg contraption that spits out a bash script of curl commands that do the massive up / downvoting. The script can be split to run on different boxes so as to come from a handful of ip addresses.
Not that I would know anything about such things.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 25 2019, @09:26PM
I browse SN in my spare time, which varies from weeks of absence to upwards of 2 hours some days, with an average around 20 minutes a day, I think...
There are people with nothing but time on their hands, and limited interests (and presumably limited funds/abilities), who do derive satisfaction from a system well gamed, people well messed around with.
Back when I was in high school, 300 baud based modem BBSs were the thing, and there were people back then who would log onto "anonymous" permitting boards and fill their floppy disks with junk messages, just to mess with the sysops.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @04:48AM (1 child)
Upmod away. He's talking about a dumbass who doesn't even have the courtesy to do it from a different IP address so there's at least some doubt.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @07:21AM
Ha. I never knew about the IP matching.
I assumed it all goes into a database so anyone interested can pull out the raw data.
Watch the IP hoppers then?