Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 25 2019, @01:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-along-with-others dept.

[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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday January 25 2019, @06:17PM (5 children)

    by lentilla (1770) on Friday January 25 2019, @06:17PM (#791919)

    "Naming names" runs counter to the spirit of this site. We could; however; publish a list of comments that were flagged for review.

    To use the terminology from the submission: don't name "user1" - instead publish a list of comments with questionable moderation. (This way the flagging could be done automatically.) This allows the community to determine if the moderation is appropriate and adjust accordingly - and additionally moves the workload away from administrators.

    Many people have chimed in on how they use their mod-points, so here's my two-cents worth: I probably up- and down- mod in equal amounts. I will happily kick the obvious dross, the redundant and especially the racist trolls to the kerb - in the hope that others won't have to waste their time reading a worthless comment (or worse, feed the troll). I certainly appreciate coming to read an older article and finding the community has already done the weeding. I rather prefer to moderate upwards but I suppose we all have to take turns cleaning the latrines.

    There may have been times I have up-modded the same person multiple times in a day - as many others have pointed out sometimes they just get on a roll and write a lot of good stuff. I most certainly have down-modded ACs multiple times - those instances where an AC posts something idiotic, gets modded down, and then re-posts again and again come to mind.

    All things considered I believe the site runs pretty well. It wouldn't be the end of the world if nothing changed - the deciding factor will likely be how much work the administration team has to put in to keep it ticking over.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday January 25 2019, @11:27PM (2 children)

    by insanumingenium (4824) on Friday January 25 2019, @11:27PM (#792095) Journal

    a quick site:soylentnets.org search would reverse that if you were really worried about not naming names...

    • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Saturday January 26 2019, @05:20AM (1 child)

      by lentilla (1770) on Saturday January 26 2019, @05:20AM (#792207)

      "User1" is a sockpuppet. "User2" is the manipulated account. By not "naming names" I was only referring to "User1". "User2" will be obvious because it is their comments flagged for review.

      We assume that "User1" is a (potentially) guilty party. "User2" may be guilty of collusion (because they are a sockpuppet, or belong to the controlling party); or they may be innocent (just happen to express a differing opinion).

      a quick site:soylentnets.org search would reverse that

      I'm not sure I understand. Given a comment made by "User2", we (non administrators) have no way of knowing who moderated it (unless I am mistaken). Yes, "User2" would be published - it doesn't suggest they are guilty of sockpuppetry - only that their comment attracted an algorithmically interesting amount of attention.

      • (Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Monday January 28 2019, @04:39PM

        by insanumingenium (4824) on Monday January 28 2019, @04:39PM (#793074) Journal

        I had misinterpreted your idea, I thought you were saying we should publish the content of the comments and not the names of the posters. In retrospect, I am not sure how I got that wrong.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @02:17PM (1 child)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 26 2019, @02:17PM (#792289) Homepage Journal

    It's currently all one person, so publishing a list of names or comments amounts to the same thing.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:08PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:08PM (#792317) Homepage Journal

      Wow, so one, lone, Soylentil has spawned an article with 214 comments and still counting. They must feel very special, what with all this attention.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?