Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Moderation Roundtable

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Moderation Roundtable | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 184 comments | Search Discussion
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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:02PM (#185623)

    Counterpoint: political hand-grenades. Any political faction has its own dogma that *someone* will always post at least once, regardless of how old, irrelevant, or debunked it may be. Suddenly, you have "sides"

    Correct. For example, "[Niggers/Mooslums/Bitches/SJWs/Fags/etc] aren't human" is a common one. It may be factually invalid and inflammatory, but its still a widely-held opinion.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday May 29 2015, @11:42AM

    by moondrake (2658) on Friday May 29 2015, @11:42AM (#189619)

    It does not matter if the opinion is widely held. Even if you hold that opinion, you need to be an utter moron to not realize they are inflammatory. Therefore its still flamebait.

    There might be dogmas or stupid statements that are not inflammatory though. Perhaps in addition to disagree we need a "Silly" mod. I do think btw that Mods such as "disagree" should require at least one reply to point out why you disagree.