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, 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.