SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There will be big changes for you but you will be happy.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:41PM
Sounds like this scheme has the possibility for organised groups to effectively silence opponents using the metamodding system. You'd need a metametamod system to handle that....
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:25PM
Both moderation and meta-moderation are / can be tools to silence dissenting voices. Meta-moderation amplifies this effect by blocking unpopular but good moderators and letting past popular but bad moderators. Just because it worked for the green site doesn't mean it is needed here.
There should be a way for the admins to temp-ban or even perm-ban moderators who massively abuse... I have seen (and taken part in) threads where I am almost certain viewpoint based moderation was going on for multiple viewpoints... This is _always_ harmful. But foxing it requires meta-mods who are prepared to sometimes -- even often -- punish those they strongly agree with and to reward those who they strongly disagree with. It's not easy to do that well.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by paulej72 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:27PM
We do have a way to temp ban and almost perma ban moderators. It is simple date in the database. If that date in in the past you can mod, if not you are banned. We have done this to some moderators that improperly used the spam mod, and we have it available for people who mod bomb. This system requires admins to look at the info and manually decide to ban a user.
Team Leader for SN Development
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:08PM
I have seen (and taken part in) threads where I am almost certain viewpoint based moderation was going on for multiple viewpoints... This is _always_ harmful.
Oh, really? Citation needed, as per the FA.