Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by NCommander on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the community-pulse-check dept.
After my last SN post the topic of moderation was brought up. Since its been quite awhile since we last openly discussed the state of moderation, I want to give the community a venue to discuss their feelings on it, and if the system needs further refinement. As a reminder, here's a review for how the system is currently setup:
  • 5 mod points are handed out to at 00:10 UTC to users with positive karma
  • ACs start at +0, users with karma less than 40 post at +1, users above that can post at +2
  • You need 10 karma to mark some spam or troll
  • Under normal circumstances, the staff do *not* have unlimited mod points, but can (and have) banned abusers of the moderation system

Please also review our SoylentNews Moderation Guidelines.

As always, we are willing to make changes to the system, but please post examples *with* links to any cases of suspected mod abuse. It's a lot easier to justify changing the system when evidence is in black and white. I also recommend that users make serious proposals on changes we can make. I'm not going to color the discussion with my own opinions, but as always, I will respond inline with comments when this goes live, and post a follow up article a few days after this one

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:12AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:12AM (#185365) Journal

    Really, seriously, I don't see a problem, other than a specific AC complaining. Some posts get modded one way, or another, but it all rounds out in the end. I do think that some, hell, even myself at some points, wish for the ability to mod posters off the site, forever, with double secret probation. But realistically that is not going to work. So I suggest that we do not change anything until, and if, there is actual evidence of abuse, and not just hurt feefees. Did I mention that I was spam modded once? Totally without justification? It was so wrong. I cried. But admin did the right thing. Can we get stats on corrections or bans by admin? Maybe there is a problem the average poster does not see.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:47AM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:47AM (#185408) Journal

    Well it means that the modbomber we've had here of late will only need to mod down 11 times to drop someone to plus 1, I would say that is a problem.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:02PM

      by moondrake (2658) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:02PM (#185415)

      huh? I do not think you can reduce someone's karma by downmodding, unless you use the spam mod.

      Care to explain?

      And what is the evidence for a modbomber?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:18PM (#185446)

        On Slashdot, you certainly lost Karma on downmods. I'm not aware of any change of that for SoylentNews, but I may have missed the change announcement.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:40PM (#185608)

        You do lose karma on downmods here on SN. My account usually sits at 50, but I noticed a new Troll moderation briefly coincided with a displayed karma value of 49.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:18PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:18PM (#185517) Journal

      We've all seen your allegations before...
       
      From the article: but please post examples *with* links to any cases of suspected mod abuse.
       
      Time for you to put up, or shut up, friend.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:13AM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday May 21 2015, @01:13AM (#185831) Journal

        If you will explain how someone without admin access is supposed to show moderation history for posts? I'll be more than happy to oblige. I can sit there and watch posts yo-yo between +5 and -1 multiple times but if I were to provide you a link all it would show is the mod at that moment and not the moderation history.

        So if you wanna give me access to the DB containing moderation history? I have ZERO doubt it would take even five fucking minutes to show a pattern. if you see the same IP address consistently modding down the same user across multiple posts or the same post multiple times? Well there ya go. And I'm not the only one its been happening to, I've heard from at least 4 other posters here who say the same thing is happening to them, any post they have that is modded up will be modbombed the day it goes off the front page. Again anybody can write a script in less than 5 minutes to show when there is a pattern, as the same IP address shouldn't be targeting the same poster or post multiple times normally, nor should a post that is rated +5 suddenly go to -1 as the majority will generally agree within a point or two so there is no way the majority would agree something is insightful and then within less than a day suddenly decide the exact same post now constitutes flamebait.

        But if you are an admin? Fell free to check my moderation history, I've had no less than 4 posts in the last 2 weeks bouncing between +5 and -1 and there is no way that would be normal, you aren't gonna have THAT many people THAT divided, especially when the post isn't even on a topic that is incendiary. If you are an admin go look at the post where I simply said "You can't judge the age of a PC by whether it came with XP as XP was sold on new PCs until late 09" and even THAT post went from +5 informative to -1 troll no less than 4 times over the period of a week.

        Now YOU TELL ME...does that sound like "normal moderation" to you?

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by mrcoolbp on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:48AM

          by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:48AM (#185865) Homepage

          I think NCommander meant if you have a "suspected case" (a comment you think was subject to abuse), show us an example and we (the admins) can look into it. Side-note: You mentioned IPs; IPs can't moderate, only accounts can moderate, so we would know which accounts are performing the moderations. IPIDs (Hased IPs) are more useful to track ACs (who can't moderate) in case they are spamming advertisements or something (IPIDs are legacy code, and yes people can avert this, but we do find them useful to at least help combat some of the spamming).

          For what it's worth, I've been involved in the (very few) potential mod-bombing investigations we have conducted. One or two seemed to have some semblance of merit, however, in every case the community corrected any mods that (we, in our opinions) were not appropriate. I strongly feel that simply making a post that says "really? that mod seems inappropriate because of X and Y" is much preferable then calling on the admins to police the comments section (something we prefer not to do because A. we'd rather be improving and running the site B. we feel this should be handled by the community anyway). I'm of course open to suggestions on how we might empower the community to more effectively do this, but the current system (where everyone has a few points a day) seems to be working well for that.

          Another side-note: though I feel the moderation guidelines are pretty well-written, not everyone will read them or follow them. Also people's opinions will always differ (which is a good thing), so comments will sometimes swing, some comments will be modded in a way I may not agree with, and so on. I truly believe that in general the vast majority of comments get modded appropriately in the end. Some may not, but can a system like this really be perfect?

          --
          (Score:1^½, Radical)
        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:22AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:22AM (#185885) Journal

          Um, Hairyfeet, you just click on the #number of the post, and it will show you all the mods. The ones marking you down will probably be me and my horde of modbombers, or it could just be that posts like yours tend, for some inexplicable reason, to attract negative reactions. I myself can't see that, since you are such a warm and cuddly soylentil. Sounds like normal moderation to me. And no thank you, I do not want to take the "Hairyfeet Challenge", and this time I am serious.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:03PM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:03PM (#186057) Journal

            Uhhhh...no it doesn't, it only shows the last 2 user mods which doesn't show modbombing. For example look at this post [soylentnews.org] which according to that has only been modded three times, 2 interesting and 1 overrated. yet when I go to my inbox (which of course I can't show you since the link would only go to YOUR inbox and not mine) over the last 24 hours its gone from +5 to +4 to +3 to +2.

            You see the post page does not show when an admin undoes moderation which is how the mods here are trying to "deal" with the modbombing rather than admit they have a problem. this approach is like putting a bandaid on the bulletwound as it costs the modbomber nothing and in fact will embolden them when they see they can do it for as long as they want with ZERO penalty for themselves. this means also that the law of averages is on the modbombers side as the odds that the admins will catch every time he modbombs? VERY low, unless they are literally babysitting the accounts of those being modbombed.

            I have seen this happen at multiple websites and it does NOT end well. Either you nip this kind of shit in the bud or you invite gaming the system,just look at how bold the sockpuppetry is on slashdot with guys like "mickey(insert every increasing number)" and I have also seen what merely trying to silently undoing modbombing gets you, they tried the same bit over at OSNews, claiming "its a free speech issue" until it got to the point that the person being stalked, a very nice and insightful OS hobbyist who just happened to be a lesbian, would post and it would be followed by up to a dozen "choke on a cock you stupid dyke bitch" posts to the point threads were unreadable for all the trolling and attacks.

            They ended up doing exactly as I have suggested here, instituting a few scripts that highlight modbombs and after a single warning to cut that shit out handing out IP bans and now? There is pretty much zero trolling there and modbombs are unheard of. But as long as they simply try to silently undo modbombs in the background? All they are doing is playing whack a mole with guys that will always win, as they literally have nothing better to do.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:13PM

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:13PM (#186165) Journal

              it costs the modbomber nothing and in fact will embolden them when they see they can do it for as long as they want with ZERO penalty for themselves. this means also that the law of averages is on the modbombers side as the odds that the admins will catch every time he modbombs? VERY low, unless they are literally babysitting the accounts of those being modbombed.

              Agreed.

              Modbombing comes in two forms. Positive modbombing and Negative modboming.

              One brings more attention to an article. The other serves only to silence unpopular (non-group-think) opinions.

              This is why I've pushed for a negative mod to cost MORE karma. (I suggested 5 karma, but that's just me). The idea is to limit the damage-hammer that we let mod-bombers inflict, by whacking them with enough negative karma till they can't mod at all. If all of one's mod-army accounts acquire negative karma it would shut them down fairly effectively.

              I would like to see all the mods in the mod summary.
              I would like to seesaw modding (in excess of some number of valence changes - like two mod-armies dukeing it out) be flagged on the purple header line with the word "Modbombed".

              At least that way we could all see what is happening.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 22 2015, @01:09AM

                by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday May 22 2015, @01:09AM (#186270) Journal

                I would 100% support your idea IF they would put some sort of limit on IP address or some sort of ID system, because otherwise? See "mickey(insert ever increasing number)" at Slashdot who just cranks out accounts so he can modbomb.

                  Hell for awhile there on Slash there was even a modbomber that had made "knock offs" of all the posters he didn't like, there was "Mcgriew", "Hairytoes", you get the idea. Using this method not only could he farm mod points for modbombing but for extra damage he'd post a ton of racist foul shit under these knock off names in the hopes that people would mistake them for the real person and start modding them down thinking they were racist trolls.

                I'm NOT bringing this up because I give a rat's ass about my karma or even this account, I've got enough places I frequent that one either way makes no difference and I ain't changing my views for NOBODY, Mr Modbomber can kiss my hairy southern ass for all I care. But the way this place was sold to me was "A return to the old Slash, heavy on tech, light on politics and groupthinking" and if that is the case? Then this kind of shit really needs to be nipped in the bud, otherwise you end up with something like The Escapist where everyone interesting has walked away because of all the modbombing and all you have left is an echo chamber that just parrots whatever the admin who does the modbombing (because in that case it IS an admin, in fact he brags about his bias regularly) so its about as interesting as reading some douchebag's manifesto on Eastern Socialism and its affect on modern feminism.

                --
                ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday May 22 2015, @01:09AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Friday May 22 2015, @01:09AM (#186271) Journal

                frojack, don't you see all the mods in the summary? I do. Are you and Hairy on some kind of restriction?

                (Oh, that whole down-modding as censorship, I don't think we have seen any evidence of that in this entire thread. Nothing actually gets hidden here, so I have to repeat myself and say I don't see the problem. )

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 22 2015, @01:17AM

              by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 22 2015, @01:17AM (#186274) Homepage

              admin undoes moderation which is how the mods here are trying to "deal" with the modbombing

              That is blatantly false. We do not un-do moderation. At most, if the community hasn't stepped in, we might elect to use some of our own points as we see fit (we do not have unlimited points either).

              --
              (Score:1^½, Radical)
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @12:28PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @12:28PM (#186411)

                i'm not staff, but i was involved in one such incident of undoing an unfair modbomb on some comments by hairyfeet as a result of discussion on irc. i can attest that we only use our own points and when we run out that's all we do.

                to hairyfeet - comment threads are a bit hard to have a real conversation. if you're having some troubles with modbombing, best to hop onto irc.sylnt.us:6667#soylent (or simply click here [soylentnews.org]) and bring it up. it's full of weirdos but if you have an issue with an unfair mod chances are someone will be around who would be happy to help if they have any points.

              • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 22 2015, @12:53PM

                by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday May 22 2015, @12:53PM (#186419) Journal

                Then please explain to me why when I click on the post I listed above it says it has ONLY been modded twice, 2 interesting and 1 overrated and is rated +4....yet in my information box it shows the post going 5,4,3,2,1? Either you sir are not privy to what the other mods are doing or your information system is BADLY broken, because it obviously is giving two different and conflicting reports.

                --
                ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @01:15PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @01:15PM (#186431)

                  i'm not a dev, but i took the liberty of submitting an issue on your behalf for the devs to take a look at when they get a chance

                  might not be a bug, but if it is they're the ones that will be able to fix it :)

                  https://github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/453 [github.com]

                • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @02:32PM

                  by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 29 2015, @02:32PM (#189673) Homepage

                  Then please explain to me why when I click on the post I listed above it says it has ONLY been modded twice, 2 interesting and 1 overrated and is rated +4....yet in my information box it shows the post going 5,4,3,2,1?

                  That's odd indeed. Could you provide a screen-shot. You could add it to the issue on github or simply email me if that's easier. Here's the issue on github [github.com].

                  --
                  (Score:1^½, Radical)
                  • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 29 2015, @11:59PM

                    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday May 29 2015, @11:59PM (#189912) Journal

                    I've cleared the info but when I get modbombed again (which happens pretty constantly from the info reports) I'll be happy to post one to the post, I bookmarked it.

                    But according to the information center every single one of my positive rated posts in the past few weeks have been following the same pattern...get to +5, almost immediately followed by 4,3,2,1, sometimes going all the way down to -2, yet when I click on the post in question? Zing, it suddenly shows the post has only been modded a couple times, and is suddenly back to (usually) +4.

                    If I had to guess I'd say there is at least one admin who is "flipping" the posts, which would explain why they always seem to leave the first downmod (since they would probably consider one disagreement to be fair, I would probably do the same) but then "erase" the following modbomb.

                    While it "could" be simply a glitch in the system, considering I have talked to other posters this is happening to and they all are seeing the same pattern AND they usually posted to a thread a certain radical had? I'm thinking I don't need to be Kojack to solve this case. The one throwing insults and attacks modbombs those that don't follow his politics, a certain admin then comes along and erases his mods, lather rinse repeat.

                    But I have your response bookmarked and will be happy to shoot you a screencap when I have one. We've had a death in the family recently so I haven't had time to mess with the net so it may be a week or two, sorry but you really can't predict these kinds of things.

                    --
                    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                • (Score: 3, Informative) by mrcoolbp on Wednesday June 03 2015, @06:44PM

                  by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Wednesday June 03 2015, @06:44PM (#191717) Homepage

                  We are still looking at this error, but I believe it has to do with the karma bonus confusing the messaging system. See this bug report: https://github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/452 [github.com]

                  --
                  (Score:1^½, Radical)
              • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:18AM

                by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:18AM (#186789) Journal

                I will also point you to this post [soylentnews.org] which again shows exactly 4 mods...Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, three postive and one negative...wanna guess what it says in my inbox? That's right...5,4,3,2 its a countdown, over and over AND OVER I'm getting countdowns yet when I click on the actual post? Poof...mods be gone!

                So you really need to talk to your fellow admins, because either somebody is doing something without telling you or your information system is horribly broken, neither is a good thing but I would vote for the former.

                --
                ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:06PM

    by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:06PM (#185558)

    I would like to be able to mod submissions.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:13PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:13PM (#185626) Journal

      I'm pleased that we can't. The editors can often make a story out of something that doesn't look up-to-snuff when sitting in the submissions queue. Its our job, it's what we do. We don't always get it right, but at least let us try.

      Can you imagine what fun people would have silencing those with whom they do not agree, simply by making sure their stories do not get out of the sub queue? What better way to ensure group think here at SN. Think how discouraging it would be to new submitters to see their early attempts at submissions being pulled apart by (perhaps) well-intentioned soylentils who have forgotten that they were once in the same boat. All they need is a bit of encouragement and direction but no - lets mod them away and ignore their efforts.

      The best way of making sure that poor quality stories never make the front page is by providing better quality stories for the editors to work with. That is the only 'moderation' I want to see in the submissions queue.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SlimmPickens on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:16PM

        by SlimmPickens (1056) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:16PM (#185729)

        What about commenting on submissions?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:56AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:56AM (#185907)

          you can already, just create a journal entry of your own, link to the submission (or cut and paste the whole thing in), and have at it.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:49AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:49AM (#185933) Journal

          Easy - when it appears on the front page you can comment all you want. The time to discuss the content is not when a sub is waiting in the queue and has been seen by only a small number of people, but after it has appeared on the front page and has been read by many more.

          Sorry, that might seem a bit flippant. More seriously though, what is the benefit of commenting on stories that are not necessarily ready for the front page? We get into the same problems of influencing what will eventually be published, which can enforce groupthink, or at least be used for casting in a poor light those stories with which the commenter might not agree. And, as with moderation of submissions, it could easily deter some submitters who don't write as well as, say, yourself.

          I'm not scotching the suggestion out of hand, but I would have to be convinced of the benefits before I could support it.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SlimmPickens on Thursday May 21 2015, @08:28AM

            by SlimmPickens (1056) on Thursday May 21 2015, @08:28AM (#185950)

            Just to chip in with a bit of re-writing, add missing links, provide updates etc. AFAIK it worked pretty well at the green site.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:01AM

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:01AM (#185955) Journal

              I appreciate that the suggestion is well intentioned - but to be honest that is the editor's role. In addition, we have to check that we are not leaving ourselves open to litigation, that the format follows our own documented standards, submissions do not contain an unfair political bias etc. One thing that we have to do is check that links actually point to what the submission suggests that they point to. We have had attempts to abuse links by pointing to political, LGBT and other sites while purporting to be links to tech sites. Without significant controls on edits being carried out by the community and records of each change made, it looks like it could be really easy to abuse the system by changing someone else's submission which would, ultimately, increase the editor's workload and not ease it. Plus, it doesn't avoid the problems that I have already highlighted in previous posts. None of the editor's tasks will be eased by allowing others to change submissions. Our internal procedures provide a record of who edited what and ensures the safeguards that we think are necessary.

              This needs to be discussed by the ed staff in more detail - I can see the potential but the controls that would be necessary would be quite burdensome at first glance. We - and I think that I can speak for the majority of the eds - would prefer to see the community effort devoted to more submissions rather than tinkering with the one's that we have.

              And an easier solution for those who want to help shape our stories is to join the editorial team. We recently took on new staff and are finding that the workload is much easier now that it can be shared more widely. But there is always room for more to join the staff - there is no formal commitment requiring you to do a specific number of stories or work when you wouldn't want to. Editing just a handful of stories each week makes the whole task easier for everyone concerned.