SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Now that the latest release of slashcode has settled, and we're moving ahead towards towards getting the site self-sufficient, it's time to look at our longer term plans. I have talked about the direction I want SN to go, as well as some of the trouble getting from here to there. With the help of the staff, what I present here is a more unified plan on how we get from here to there for the community to evaluate. This should however be considered a draft, so, as usual, feel free to rip it to shreds, etc. In short, here's what I want to get done over the next six months:
- SoylentNews PBC reaches self-sufficiency
- Beginnings of a major "port and polish" on both content and the site itself
- Build a more uniformed sense of community throughout the site
- Compilation and completion of a "style and policy" manual
- Preparations for running a crowd-funding campaign to get initial capital
- Define, with assistance and input from the community, a mechanism for community governance
- If possible, try and reach out to other not-for-profit journalist organizations for advice and guidance
- Bootstrap the NFP umbrella from the B-corp's funds
- Define a framework for which original content will be used on SoylentNews
- Identify people who may be willing to work in a journalistic capacity with us
- With the above frameworks in place, fundraise
- Original content launches on SN
As usual, I'm going to go through these one by one, so check past the break
SoylentNews PBC reaches self-sufficiencyThis one is pretty much self-explanatory, and we already have the basic plan in place. It is our hope that a combination of shop revenue and subscriptions will be able to offset our hosting and legal costs. Ideally, we need to raise about $10k a year to have a safe buffer here, though we can make do with less. As of right now, we have earned approximately $1300 from subscriptions and shop revenue, so we've made decent progress in this regard.
Broken down, our annual costs look like this (all values in USD):
- $~3600 yearly hosting costs (can be reduced at the cost of site reliability; having multiple machines has already paid for itself in many regards. Active efforts in this area are ongoing)
- $1-2k retainer for accountant + services at tax time
- ~$5k retainer for a lawyer for the organization (something we will need sooner or later)
Ultimately, this is the most important thing that the site hinges on; even if everything else we do goes bust, as long as the site can pay for itself, it will continue to keep going, regardless of any of the staff's economic situation. Always remember, the site and the community come first.
Beginnings of a major "port and polish" on both content and the site itself
Let me break this into two sections for the sake of clarity:
The Site Itself
As far as websites go, SN is functional, but its UI isn't exactly great, with lots of tiny text and easy to miss boxes. There's room for improvement here to help make the site more usable for everyone; some low-hanging fruit is reorganizing all the preferences onto a single page, adding more descriptive help text on various things, and all-and-all improvement. We've already made a lot of great strides here, but the fact is, the site doesn't look much different from when we launched back in February.
Now, I will first up admit I'm not a website designer, nor a UI specialist, but those who weren't deeply involved with the other site will likely struggle to understand the interface. I think there's grounds here for a series of small but incremental tweaks to streamline the site for the general public, while allowing individual users to keep the current look-and-feel if they so choose. For instance, the improved threading interface, while a massive step up from 1997, is still somewhat awkward and feels tacked on. Unfortunately, our last recruitment drive was something of a bust, but I'm hoping if we bring up the topic as a dedicated article, we may be able to attract someone who is at least able to outline and identify the roughest points of SN, and help us modify the UI to streamline them. The current plan is for the next development cycle of the codebase to be mostly dedicated as a port and polish, fixing some longstanding pain like Apache 1.3, or finishing the long promised and underdeveloped modpoint rework.
As usual, we can use JavaScript/CSS and such, as long as the site degrades nicely, and loses no major functionality when either of those is disabled. I realize this adds a real burden to the frontend side of things, but we've already promised (and frequently delivered) that extra mile, and I have no intention of stopping. Most of our users have been with us since golive, and I don't plan to alienate anyone by disrupting how they use SoylentNews.
The Content Side of Things
First off, this isn't flack towards anyone; this is simply a statement of my observations and a feeling I've gotten from reading comments posted by the community. All and all, I think the editorial team does an amazing job in getting submissions in order and ready to go, and I can honestly say I want to see you guys keep up the good work. I do realize though that all of us are volunteers, and time can be very limited, as well as the position of editor being a lot of work, and relatively little praise. The purpose of this section is to acknowledge points that the community has brought up in comments and our progress at addressing them.
From where I'm sitting, we've done a relatively good job on getting a good variety of content out the door. While our focus is a bit scattered, I think we have sourced a decent variety of articles for community enjoyment and discussion. We've had some very broad and lively discussions on diverse topics, with some articles breaking 100 comments. Unfortunately, for as many successes as we had, we've quite a few posts go out with technical errors such as obvious typos, which sometimes go unedited even after the post has been publicly out for awhile (and said typos frequently get called out in comments). While the main-page at any given time is usually in good shape, folks tend to remember the bad, and not the good, so we need to find better ways to minimize the amount of mistakes that go out the door.
When it comes to editorial quality, my standards are the same as the Borg: absolute perfection.
On this front, I will be looking at ways to allow the community to suggest edits and revisions to the article (perhaps something similar to the Wikipedia "Proposed Revisions" functionality), to allow folks to fix what they see as wrong.
On the other hand, on any discussion regarding articles themselves, we need to talk about the content itself. I do recognize that is a bit of a more subjective subject thing, but we have a bad tendency to be hit or miss. I'll be the first to admit that we're a little all over the board and generally run whatever comes into the queue. This isn't helped since I've pushed the angel of "general journalism" vs. limited to a subset (ala arstechnica), which I suspect has made it difficult to define what we will and won't run.
For example, here are two articles that were at the top of the page from when I originally draft of this post:
Scrabble Champ Wins with Vowel Movements
Download Wrappers and Unwanted Software are Pure Evil
One of those is very high quality, and an excellent summary, while the "Download Wrappers and Unwanted Software are Pure Evil" is... not. As someone who always strives for the best, I think we need to tighten this up. Either we have to be more liberal with the use of the "Reject" button, or willing to go the extra mile and edit things into a consistent level of quality. Since I brought this issue up internally, there has been progress on defining a specific and firm guideline on how to format stories, and the criteria to decide if we approve them. As of this writing, this is still somewhat of a draft, but I am looking at running a dedicated article on this subject for some time this week, to get community feedback.
Build a more uniformed sense of community throughout the site
So, this one might be a bit controversial, but in some respects, our community is somewhat scattered. The fact is that the only venue for discussion on the site is on articles themselves, or on IRC. As a group, we're more or less united against becoming what the other site became. I see a couple of common names on posts, but I don't really know fellow posters that well. On various discussion forums I was active on, such as Bay12, you frequently get to see and perhaps know others. Within the developer community for Ubuntu, you frequently talk and discuss matters with other devs on a regular basis; as far as user-to-user communication goes on SN, one's options are essentially limited to email, journal posts (which have their own limitations), and conversation via threads. This is definitely not ideal, and while we have the friend/foe system (referred to as the Zoo), I suspect 99% of users never use it since they don't really know anyone in the community.
A lot of it is that the general involvement in SN is a passive one; folks read articles, and perhaps comment or submit something interesting. There isn't an active focus on discussing things except for the occasional "Ask SN" topic that pops up every once in awhile. Now obviously, this isn't something we can just magically snap our fingers and make appear overnight, but it is something we can help provide the tools for allowing this sort of kinship between users to form. For one, having general purpose discussion forums would help provide a venue where users can bring whatever comes to mind, and just socialize. Sub-slashes is another venue where a group of users can form to follow a common interest, such a DIY community, or folks who are interested in Magic the Gathering. The objective here is to figure out how to allow folks to us SN to socialize and form a cohesive identity, while still allowing folks to create communities-within-communities.
I'm open to ideas on how to improve the site in this regard, and perhaps run a more general (Ask SN) discussion on it.
Preparations for running a crowd-funding campaign to get initial capital
So, in previous brainstorming sessions on how to fund the site and original content, one of the ideas that came up and stuck was doing a crowdfunding campaign. As things stand, I think this is likely our best source of being able to fund our operations, as well as being most in line with our founding principles and goals. As with all things, crowdsourcing comes with various risks and never is 100% guaranteed to be successful.
As things stand, we need a sufficiently large userbase to successful fund such an endeavor, as well as a need to identity folks who would be willing to write for us. In a broader sense, we need to identify what we're looking for from authors, assemble a plan and business model to pay them from raised revenues, and then proceed to implement it. Some high-level ideas have been thrown around before, but we need something tightly focused here to help build out our business model.
Furthermore, in the interests of remaining a free and independent entity, preparations, and further research in bootstrapping a parent NFP should begin to take focus here. This leads in directly to my next point
Define, with assistance and input from the community, a mechanism for community governance
The fact is, a good chunk of the community is likely to be pretty 'meh' on governance issues. This is an unfortunate reality we need to live with, but at the end of the day, these same people are the group we are accountable to. As such, they need a way to have a direct say in our operations, while still allowing the staff to be able to operate the day-to-day business without getting overburdened in bureaucracy.
One possible solution for this (and for now the primary plan), is to have the SoylentNews PBC bootstrap a parent not-for-profit, which in turn draws its board directly from the community via elections (also known as a member NFP). While the specifics need to be determined, in a broad sense, I'd like to see where the board can nominate candidates, and if need be, the community can also elect and appoint its own representatives. Once established, the PBC would "sell itself" to the not-for-profit, giving majority control of the company to the board of directors, creating in effect a two level system.
* The SoylentNews PBC will continue to manage and oversee site operations, as well as being self-financed, and continue to operate as an independent entity, The NFP board will be able to "pull rank" via shareholder meetings if need be should the PBC board get out of line, providing the necessary community oversight, while still allowing the staff and directors of PBC a relatively free hand in managing site operations. To help fund the PBC, a method of allowing some of PBC's revenue to migrate into the NFP will be established to allow the NFP to function.
* The NFP itself will be tasked with broader objectives as defined by the manifesto, such as public awareness on freedom of speech, etc. Depending on the circumstances, the NFP may or may not pursue 501(c)(3) status, as well as helping to establish other projects in the name of freedom of press.
As some may have noticed, this is a somewhat different position than I had been pitching before; the reason being is in many of the discussions that arose since completing incorporation, it has become clear that we need to be accountable in some fashion. While many people have stated that we could just fork the site, the fact is that would splinter the community and cause a huge repetition of effort. Our best line of defense is to allow the community to, if need be, take action should they feel the need to do so.
Bootstrap the NFP umbrella from the B-corp's funds
As described above, this is where we make the step to community governance. Although the exact timing of this may vary, it is likely worthwhile to have such oversight in place long before we are handing any significant amount of money (though then again, it may be worth waiting until after our first crowd-sourcing campaign. TBD)
Define a framework for which original content will be used on SoylentNews
I've touched on this aspect before, but it bears repeating. We need a clear, defined interface between the site and independent authors/journalists. This involves the following aspects:
- Identifying and proving a mechanism for prospective writers to step forward
- Identify a method of trial and confirmation, allowing new authors to "cut their teeth" so to speak
- Define a method of compensation; likely starting on a per-article basis, and perhaps migrating to salaried depending on available assets + long term contribution
- Modification of SN itself to better accommodate original articles (clearer integration of media, easier to use admin tools, etc.)
This framework will become the basis of how we generate original content, and from here, work on moving to an actual news organization.
Identify people with journalistic experience to act as an overseer/guide/guru
The fact of the matter is though, at the end of the day, none of us are journalists. There are standards held to members of the associated press, and other media organizations, and if we're going to be seen as a serious attempt in not-for-profit journalism, we need to meet and exceed these standards; what we need is someone who knows this field to help us get the rest of our groundwork in place, and who we can hand "this is what we've done, how do we take it that final step".
Our guru (for want of a better term) should be able to go through our now-compiled policy manual, perhaps interview some of our early picks for paid writers, and help get things rolling in reporting news and information from around the world.
An important aspect here, though, is figuring out what we're covering in tight detail. I recommend we start with a narrowish focus, starting in tech news, and then bubbling out, using the advantage of the nexus feature to subdivide the site on a topic basis. With a tighter focus on original content, we should be able to limit costs and keep things tight and on track. If we're successful in this, on future crowd-funding campaigns, we can slowly begin to expand the focus of original content. Our initial funding goals should allow us to send one individual to a few conferences (perhaps linux.com.au, etc), while others can attend and report on local events in the tech world.
I'll admit, this one might be the most difficult item on this list, but I'm in it to win it, and I know that none of us have the necessary experience on the media side of things to succeed here. We've already had some impressive contact with folks from around the world, so I'm certain we can at least get advice if nothing else, but we need to learn everything we can.
With the framework in place, fundraise
Within the next six months, by having fulfilled our goals and thus proved we know what we're doing, we go forth to the world, and ask for funding. By this time, we should have a reasonable idea of what expenses and goals w.r.t. original content will be, and thus know what dollar amount we have to hit to succeed.
With that in mind, we set our goals, run the campaign, and see if we can raise enough money to change history. Or in other words, profit.
Original Content (Officially) Launch
Exactly what it says on the tin.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Comments have just ben enabled for this story. Also added the missing revenue figure. Sorry for any inconvenience.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bziman on Monday September 15 2014, @07:06PM
On the contrary, the UI is fantastic. Please, don't be like that other site and screw it up. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's the primary reason I bailed out of the other site and came here.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Monday September 15 2014, @07:28PM
Plus 1.
Look and feel is probably as good as it needs to be.
The slow steady improvements that have occurred since inception are the way to go.
Base it on bitch levels, or maybe run a poll to find out what irritates folks the most.
IOW, don't look to add things just cuz you can, fix what really drives users nuts.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday September 15 2014, @07:46PM
I concur. The UI is not an issue as far as I'm concerned.
Remember that UI issues with another site are what prompted the Soylentils to gather in the first place.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fnord666 on Monday September 15 2014, @08:59PM
Unless you try to view it on a mobile device. Then it is basically unreadable.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 15 2014, @09:08PM
I suggest a better mobile device. I have no problem reading, posting or navigating mobile.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 01 2014, @07:19PM
It isn't that bad on my phone. It's a 2 year old android, it's going for about fifty bucks these days.
S/N could use a mobile interface, though.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by bziman on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:33AM
I read and post from my old Android phone all the time. If you want a really great low-bandwidth reading experience, checkout http://soylitenews.org/avantify.cgi [soylitenews.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @09:27PM
FWIW, I don't mind experiments with the UI as long as they are experiments and the community gets the final say on permanent changes.
As for how to gauge the community's approval - I think something that uses the site's polling function would be a way to vote. Like a list of ten possible UI changes and let people pick what they think they would want the most. Each option should include a minimum of a couple of sentences describing the change. It would be nice if there was a way to do ranked voting rather than just pick-one though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:51AM
This is a good idea. I couldn't believe it when Slashdot started forcing the beta on users, and there were stories with 30+ comments and all but one or two were people expressing total anger and hatred for the shitty shitty beta site. That's the kind of feedback that should result in the beta site being taken down immediately and the project shelved forever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @10:02PM
While the UI is a big concern, I'm also very concerned about how tyrannical moderation will be avoided.
What I'm referring to is the bullshit that goes on at Slashdot, Hacker News, and especially reddit whenever somebody voices an opinion that may differ from what the community has deemed to be "acceptable".
Instead of allowing these people to be heard, the moderation systems at those sites end up just crushing any view that differs from that held by the majority (or even just the minority who may get to moderate). What's left is rather pathetic, boring "circle-jerk" self-affirmation that isn't worth reading.
Unfortunately, I saw some of this tyrannical moderation happening here in some discussion yesterday: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/09/14/0454245 [soylentnews.org]
Some folks with a militant love for political correctness went through and modded down a lot of perfectly good comments. Even worse, a lot of totally shit comments were modded up.
I want to read discussion where opposing and conflicting viewpoints can both be expressed. I don't care if some of these ideas may not be considered "politically correct", they should not be modded down.
If somebody supports, say, homosexual marriage, then I want to see at least some of those comments at +5. If somebody doesn't support homosexual marriage, then I want to see at least some of those comments at +5, too. If somebody has some alternate viewpoint, well damn it all to hell, I want to see some of those at +5.
What I don't want to see is a bunch of "social justice warrior" types engaging in the suppression of free speech like we see happen at Slashdot, HN and reddit on a near-constant basis. The mis-moderation of the comments in that submission here from yesterday really disappointed me, and made me question just how viable this site will be as a truly open venue for discussing topics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @10:19PM
Your whining about "tyrannical moderation" is just thin-skinned political correctness of its own.
Anyone who uses the term "social justice warrior" non-ironically is just a whiny little bitch.
Suck it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @10:30PM
That's not the vibe that I get from that AC's comment. Wanting all viewpoints to be fairly represented is not whining. It's what makes for good discussion, I think. I would be happy to see no moderation here, in fact. All comments would be shown in full by default.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @11:09PM
> That's not the vibe that I get from that AC's comment.
Really? The fact that he thinks "social justice warrior" is a real thing ought to be a big enough viber to fully disqualify the post.
Would you have preferred he use the term "femi-nazi" or libtard? SJW is just the latest incarnation of those, brought to you by the same butthurt people.
> Wanting all viewpoints to be fairly represented is not whining.
Dude is clearly whining that his "thug" posts got modded up and then got modded down. He got fair representation, what he wants is the false balance of equal representation. [wikipedia.org]
> All comments would be shown in full by default.
Set your preferences and you can have that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:03AM
Nah, sunshine, SJWs are the butthurt ones. They go absolutely bug-eyed lib-rage any time anyone has an opinion that differs from how they think the world should be. Then they Troll, Flamebait, Overrated mod your last ten comments because the folks in charge in their lack of utter foolishness didn't see fit to put in a Disagree downmod.
They preach tolerance of everything, as long as it's something they approve of. Independent thought or opposing viewpoints? Those can never be tolerated. Aren't in favor of gun control? You must be insane and are worse than Hitler. Don't agree with socialized medicine? You're a greedy fuckwad and they hope you get shot and the hospital won't treat you.
No, my cowardly friend, SJWs are very real and utterly vile. You'll find more intolerance and hate in one SJW than you will in an entire Klan meeting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:08AM
> Nah, sunshine, SJWs are the butthurt ones.
Yeah, you are so butt-strong that you had to respond to an AC flaming someone else with a big ole "nuh-uhhhh."
Totally not butthurt at all.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:15AM
My butt is rock-like in its pain immunity. I rip on people who insist on bring wrong out loud because it's fun and it's a public service in case anyone might be tempted to think they knew what they were talking about.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:02AM
haha and now you are doing that thing where you just insist you are right, so butt-strong, so, so, so butt-strong.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:12AM
Your troll-fu is weak, young one. Stay the patient course/Of little worth is your ire/The network is down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:18AM
> Your troll-fu is weak,
And yet you couldn't help but respond 3 times now.
Your words say one thing, but your actions say butthurt 100x louder.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:51AM
That's "bored" that they're saying. Nothing good on TV? Waste a troll's time. All you have to do to win is not get angry.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:05AM
And we have #4 - now with the ego-saving "I'm so bored by all this" claim.
You are really doing the public a service here.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:23AM
Why thank you, I thought so. Wasting your time with me means you're not annoying anyone who's actually trying to have a conversation. The longer I keep you occupied the better.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:25AM
And we have #5 on the doth protest too much train.
Because, clearly you keeping some random anonymous coward -- who posts with a score of 0 -- occupied is the greatest contribution you have to offer to the world.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:46PM
Many of us on the left are equally frustrated and disgusted by SJW political correctness run amuck. I'm tired of real liberal values being subverted by these professional victims. I'm very far left on most issues, I'm either a Social Democrat or a Libertarian Socialist depending on the system you're using to analyze politics, and I tend to vote Green Party. Nowhere in any of these platforms will you find the "right" to not be offended--and that's essentially what SJWs stand for at their core. "Your rights stop where my feelings begin" is not a liberal value. All opinions are NOT equal. Fairness does NOT mean evenhandedness.
Being left-wing used to mean anti-totalitarian, and that meant standing up to bigots, no matter what their particular ideology. SJW are just the latest kind of bigot.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:13PM
> I'm tired of real liberal values being subverted by these professional victims.
Like who? Can you name even one such SJW that can comes close to deserving the title of being a "professional victim?"
And how many of them are here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:06PM
Anita Sarkasian comes to mind. For a parade of examples you might try browsing this subreddit [reddit.com], which is dedicated to documenting cases of that delusional worldview.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:33AM
> Anita Sarkasian comes to mind.
Holy shit. If you consider Sarkasian [theverge.com] a "professional victim" then you've just confirmed every stereotype and criticism of anti-SJW crusaders ever.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Wednesday September 17 2014, @05:27AM
It's also possible that you are one (SJW) yourself and are currently engaged in the exact same behavior. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You might just be ignorant that she's a con-woman, a thief who swindled people out of Kickstarter money, a confessed non-gamer merely focusing on this subculture because that's where she can make hay with her brand of outrage, and to top it all off, a bald-faced liar who falsely claimed to have received death threats which lead her to file a police report (which never happened).
If she's someone you admire, you're really being lead off the righteous path by a charlatan and her army of white knights.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:51AM
I take it you have never been to college. The so-called SJWs do exist, and they do go out of their way to limit the free expression of others. For people who claim to be all about tolerance, freedom and so forth, they sure put in a lot of effort trying to censor and shut down opinions they happen to disagree with. They thrive on the Internet because a lot of web sites do have broken moderation systems that allow for abuse to take place much too easily. I personally hope that this site isn't one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:06AM
> The so-called SJWs do exist, and they do go out of their way to limit the free expression of others.
And since it is impossible to delete a post on soylent, not only do such people not exist here, they can't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:27PM
You can downvote people to -1, which effectively censors them by removing them from the default comment view. Most people never change the default settings, so they never see those posts. It's a problem with any system that allows downvotes and has a view threshold.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:01AM
I just read through all of the comments for that submission, and I didn't see any trace of racism. And I think the use of the word thug was reasonable. Thug isn't a race specific word. It applies equally well to anyone of any skin color who would, say, shove a shop keeper while engaging in robbery. After all, the definition of thug [reference.com] is "a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer." That totally describes the person in the surveillance video who was shown attacking the shop keeper. If any comment here using the word thug was modded down then I have to agree that there is something wrong going on. Comments that are correct shouldn't be downmodded. They should be upmodded. Anyone who engaged in the bad modding should totally lose their modding privileges. They clearly don't know what they're doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:14AM
> Thug isn't a race specific word.
And fag did not used be a derogatory term. Language evolves, and if you are legitimately unaware of the modern usage then you really aren't qualified to comment. I suppose it is possible to live in such a bubble, but I'm not going to give you the benefit of that doubt.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:06AM
That's why the fight against creeping political correctness is a never-ending one -- because assholes like you try to make more and more words forbidden and disappeared down the memory hole.
And who declared you arbiter of which words should and should not be spoken? No, fuck you. I'm not gonna let an asshole like you tell me what I can and can't say. I'm not "living in a bubble," I'm actively pushing back against control-freak assholes like you both online and in real-life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:37AM
That's why the fight against creeping political correctness is a never-ending one -- because assholes like you try to make more and more words forbidden and disappeared down the memory hole.
No one here is making words "forbidden" - no post has ever been deleted here for any reason, much less for the use of any particular word.
But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.
Personally I love it when people self-identify as racist by their language. It is a valuable heuristic. It lets me know right up front that their perception of the world is so skewed that whatever other opinions they might hold have a good chance of being the opposite of reality.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:23PM
So, then, will you include being religious as part of that heuristic? Because in my opinion being religious has less basis in reality than being racist. Being religious is a valuable heuristic. It lets me know right up front that their belief in an imaginary being is so insane that whatever other opinions they might hold have a good change of being out of touch with reality.
Or do they get a free pass from you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:40PM
Being fundamentalist gets them same treatment. Fundamentalism and racism are on about the same level of stupid. The thing about racism is that it always boils down to bad math - primarily selection bias - and math is inherently knowable. A general belief in the divine is unknownable - neither provable nor disprovable. I don't have a problem with faith in something that can't be disproved (and a god of the gaps doesn't count). I do have a problem with people who wilfully choose to believe in something that can and has repeatedly been disproven in various ways in various cases over the long history of civilization - and that is something that fundamentalists and racists have in common.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:55AM
There's no good way to get rid of bad downmods ... and I say this even tho I think the majority of downmods are unwarranted, outside of the obvious spammy posts.
But I'd suggest making downmods more "expensive" -- so for every downmod, you use three mod points instead of one. If you really feel strongly enough to spend three points to take a post down by one rating, then you can still do it, but you can't spend ten points downmodding ten posts; you'd only be able to downmod three posts (with one point left over which you can still use to upmod).
Also, the "when you get mod points again" thing could be skewed so anyone who gives a lot of downmods gets mod points less often.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:08AM
This is a very interesting idea - it encourages good comments but still allows trolls to be addressed. The only problem might be that sockpuppets can cheaply keep trollish posts afloat, basically reducing the community's ability to fight them. It's a balancing act. Perhaps it should instead be a cumulative thing within a batch of points: cost 1 point for the first downmod in a single thread, 2 for the second downmod, and 3 points for the third and so on.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:50AM
That's a good thought too -- make downmodding progressively expensive, so there's not too much penalty for killing junk. Or maybe it could depend on your up to down ratio -- the more downmods you give, the more expensive it gets.
But I don't think the sockpuppets are too much of a problem unless they get upmodded, and who's going to do that? other sockpuppets? how are they going to acquire the karma to be given that many mod points?
Whatever we try here, we're not married to it -- if it doesn't work, revert it.
Another thought is to add "Disagree" (and maybe a couple variants) and not have it affect the post's score, but make the tally of "disagrees" show next to the score, or let the user set it as a downmod in their personal view (much like the friend/foe plus-minus option).
And a further thought is to make downmods non-anonymous -- if you downmod, your username goes in the score. That could produce some pride in zealously downmodding spam, while making it embarrassing to downmod just because you don't like or disagree with the post.
Myself, I find that even with my threshold set to 0, there just aren't that many garbage comments here. We've seem to have a much higher proportion of ACs than that other site, and quite often they have something worthwhile to say.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:46PM
Another thought is to add "Disagree" (and maybe a couple variants) and not have it affect the post's score, but make the tally of "disagrees" show next to the score, or let the user set it as a downmod in their personal view (much like the friend/foe plus-minus option).
Heeeey, that's a really good idea! I absolutely adore the idea of post 'metrics' displayed next to the score that indicate level of agreement and moderation. I wonder how it would affect moderation if you could simple click a + or - button for 'I agree with this" that is simply consensus building, vs "offtopic" that affects visibility. This can hook into some of the points made in previous posts here about how minority views are often silenced - why not take the politics out of moderating and use it as a quality control instead of the ersatz political commentary that it has become.
Sir or madam, thank you for your interesting and helpful post! I hope your idea is implemented.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:17PM
Kinda like the Like and Dislike buttons on Youtube... doesn't affect visibility but tells you how many people agree or disagree with your tastes and opinions. OTOH, a good many thinking folks might just bail entirely if it became overly clear that their opinions were considered garbage by the majority.
Personally I think anything that encourages "consensus" should be discouraged, because all that does is contribute to groupthink. And that's why I don't think "I disagree" should be any sort of downmod for the post's visibility.
On thinking more about it, I'm not sure I like my own suggestions. :(
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:25PM
-1 disagree. :)
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:40PM
+1 Insightful :)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 15 2014, @10:28PM
We've been discussing that since the beginning. Personally, I'd like to remove Underrated and institute meta-moderation in such a way that bad moderators will die of old age before they get mod points again. My say isn't what gets coded though; that will have to be debated until we come up with something most people will dig. We really don't have the coding manpower right now to both work on small features/bugs and meta-moderation though, so if I start on it in October like I'd planned, it will mean only the coding paulej72's overworked backside can manage will be in the 14.12 update. Unless I finish it in time to thoroughly test it before then that is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @10:41PM
What about removing moderation almost completely, and showing almost all comments without obscuring any of them?
The only situation where a comment would be obscured is if it's obvious commercial spam. I'm talking about the "CleanMyPC" (or whatever it actually is) comments that are posted to Slashdot on occasion.
Anyone caught abusing this functionality by moderating down non-spam comments would lose their moderating privileges forever after the first offense.
The meta-moderation system would be open to everyone. When a comment is modded down as being spam, a button is shown next to it. If a sufficient number of people use this button to mark the comment as incorrectly moderated, then the moderator is punished as described earlier.
This would allow comments that truly are visually disruptive to be obscured by default, while all other legitimate discussion is visible by default, without biases causing intentional or unintentional censorship to happen.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @11:13PM
> What about removing moderation almost completely, and showing almost all comments without obscuring any of them?
Log in, set your preferences and you can have that. If you don't want to log in, get the Redirector add-on for firefox and set it to rewrite comments URLs to show that view by default.
Moderation is an important feature of soy, if you want a soy-lite then you can have that. If you want everyone to have soy-lite then you are worse than what you complain about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:54AM
Users shouldn't have to opt-in to see all comments. It should be the other way around. Those who wish for certain content to be censored should be the ones creating accounts, setting preferences, or installing addons.
Just because Slashdot has a moderation system that's broken in some ways it does not mean that this site can't strive to fix those problems. I thought that was one of the main points of this site. It's all about improving the Slashdot experience now that Slashdot has shown itself to not care about making such improvements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:21AM
> Users shouldn't have to opt-in to see all comments.
Sez you. If a couple of mouse clicks is too much for you then the internet is probably not your happy place.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Leebert on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:58AM
I've spent a lot of time over the years grumbling over moderation issues on slashdot, and I often found myself wishing for a few things, among them:
To be honest, I could come up with some arguments about how those suggestions might backfire, but since you brought up the subject I figured I'd throw the ideas out to see if they had value to anyone else.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:25AM
Cheers, we're still wide open on suggestions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:05AM
I've also occasionally upmodded both sides of an argument, and even arguments where I disagree with one side or the other, because I thought it was important to bring both sides out into the air and light, or both sides having made good points.
And I think excessive downmodding actually degrades the conversation, by skewing it all one way -- so the sane-and-logical opposition gives up, leaving only the troll-and-flame opposition.
I too suggest that downmods should be more "expensive" -- have each downmod use 3 mod points. I mutter about that somewhere above. I think that would sufficiently slow down the "mod down ten posts I disagree with" types without sacrificing too much of the ability to kill spammy crap. I also suggested that your up vs down mods should weigh against your future mod points -- so folks who prefer to downmod get fewer points.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by monster on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:32AM
I too have upmodded both sides of an argument, even when I only agree with one side. But at least for me the bar is: If you present a coherent post, give citations and/or a rationale while presenting your argument, you can be upmodded, no matter if I agree or not. If the post is just some name-calling and zombie arguments it stays as is or, if really goes against sane discussion, gets downmodded.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:37AM
Yeah, the "opposing view" has to contribute something worthwhile -- for me, it fills a gap in the back-and-forth of discussion, whether that's informative or whatever. Just arguing doesn't qualify. I know 'em when I see 'em.
I've been on /. since 1998 and here since a month or two after the beginning, and I've given two downmods in all that time -- one to egregious namecalling that had somehow gotten itself marked insightful, and the other was accidental in the early days before I realised one had to take care not to have a comment dropdown be the focus when you don't want it finalized. So yeah, I'd like to have the option to UnMod a comment -- maybe instead of making the mod box go away after being used, switch it to "unmod" (I suppose the two modes could swap back and forth as often as needed). -- There are enough folks happy to downmod, I don't need to be one of 'em.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:52PM
How about a moderation preview button? It is really easy to accidentally change a previous moderation while looking at a long list of comments and not know it. On slashdot, I have accidentally moderated a comment I though insightful as flamebait becaused I pressed a cursor key or something like that.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 1) by albert on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:01AM
Before you subtract downvotes from upvotes, square the upvotes.
(or use some other non-linear function)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:17AM
I like your general idea better than the one of making down-votes use more mod points than up-votes because making one more expensive than the other is an inherent judgment that one direction should cost the moderator more than another. That seems like a recipe for a kind of "grade inflation."
But I don't think it needs to be non-linear. Just let a down-mod count half as much as an up-mod. Maybe that means the moderation scale has to go to 10 instead of 5, or maybe just make half-points invisible and have no effect until they sum up to a whole mod point. That might also discourage "piling on" not that "piling on" seems to be a problem here.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:03AM
the only "tyrannical moderation" occurring in that article is Tork being mod-bombed for arguing with blatant racists and idiots. there's no evidence anywhere of your so-called "social justice warriors".
funny how it was only ACs stirring up trouble; i wish i had so little integrity i could post as AC and then mod people down for disagreeing with me, especially when i was obviously wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:33AM
No, no, no. You don't understand.
SJWs are by definition wrong, they even know they are wrong they just aren't principled enough to admit it. So downmoding them is correct.
But when a defender of civilization is dowmodded for "Bwahahahaha, ROFLMAO." that is a tyrannical SJW abusing the moderation system.
It's not difficult to figure out why Conservatives on the Internet tend to be more intelligent. It takes quite a bit of an independent streak and some world class critical thinking skills to break yourself out of the overwhelmingly Liberal echo chamber that is the online community.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:52AM
calling somebody a "social justice warrior" is merely an ad hominem, and people only resort to ad hominems when they know they're wrong and have no rebuttal. your incessant use of ad hominems shows that you have nothing to back up anything in your post and have no interest in debating. people who not only have no interest in debating, but actively refuse to do so, instead resorting to ad hominems and actively ignoring facts, are the ones who force echo chambers into existence through their non-stop demonstrations of their lack of thinking skills.
its pretty clear from your post that you're one of the assholes trying to change this place into an echo chamber. go the fuck away. if i wanted an echo chamber, i'd go to huffpo or fox news.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:58AM
"calling somebody a "social justice warrior" is merely an ad hominem"
That is objectively inaccurate as its trivial to pull the dictionary definition of "social justice" and "warrior" and concatenate them.
Subjectively I'd evaluate that as an accurate summary of some behavioral observation.
I suppose it could be misapplied, or a lovely argument could result from two observers thinking of two different situations or ...
Its doubly objectively false as an ad hominem is "a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact". If the topic of the discussion is the aggression level of enforcers of politically correct speech, then describing the aggressors as "social justice warriors" is perfectly on topic. Or maybe in contrast, a perfect ad hominem response would be something like "he's not white" which would seem to have nothing to do with the discussion.
I think maybe you should have accused him of something like "Argument to moderation" where he's trying to discredit your position by pointing out "warrior" behavior and therefore not moderate, rather than merely being mildly peeved or slightly annoyed.
Its a peculiar argument, because historically inquisition and mccarthy hearing type of groups never are discouraged by pointing out their extremism.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:40PM
ah, i didn't mean in general. the term probably can be applied to people properly; i've never seen the alleged actions of which they're accused personally, but its a believable proposition. i meant it in the context seen here: calling somebody a "social justice warrior" as a method of calling them an extremist in order to discredit everything they say and do. attacking the person rather than their argument is the definition of an ad hominem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:45PM
I think you should go back and read that post more closely. It flew over your head.
Maybe you just got poed [wikipedia.org] but how crazy does someone have to be to think that a bare "Bwahahahaha, ROFLMAO." should not be be down-modded?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:16PM
"method of calling them an extremist in order to"
Did you pull the definitions of "social justice" and "warrior". Its not that negative of a connotation.
Maybe you could pull off an intentionality fallacy claim, but you're going to have to try a lot harder.
"attacking the person rather than their argument is the definition of an ad hominem"
Um, no, not even close. Most definitions contain something along the lines of "rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author". So you're not complaining about the label being used, as in its properly being used, but instead are claiming that its totally irrelevant to discuss behavior descriptions in a discussion about behavior. Well then.
See the problem with just making up definitions that sound good is you can't really talk about stuff anymore.
I'm guessing you're trying the moral high ground tack or maybe thought-terminating cliche. But if you're just going to redefine stuff...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:27PM
Abusive ad hominem [wikipedia.org] usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments.
Ad hominem: [purdue.edu] This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments
Fallacy: Personal Attack. [nizkor.org] Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
is your pedantry so extreme that you can't even read past the first line of a definition?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:42PM
I have faith we will reach common ground eventually. Well, maybe not. But some forward progress. It is getting boring however.
Yes that is an excellent ad hominem along the lines of "rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact" pedantry as a personality trait and all that, which has absolutely nothing to do with the correctness of observational facts and definitions and general strategic / tactical discussion.
So perhaps are you operating under the weird idea that being a social justice warrior is bad? Or that its the acting like one thats bad? Or the acting like one in inappropriate situations thats bad? Might help your strategy to define your terms.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:02PM
i wasn't dismissing your post based on your pedantry. the pedantry around here drives me insane because context is everything, and pedants intentionally ignore context. its frustrating always having to spell everything thing out that should be implicitly understood.
the context i'm using for "social justice warrior" being used as a pejorative comes from the post [soylentnews.org] i originally replied to: "Some folks with a militant love for political correctness went through and modded down a lot of perfectly good comments." in the summary of his paragraph, he says everyone applying those "tyrannical mods" are "social justice warriors". there's also mighty buzzard's post [soylentnews.org] a bit further down which clearly states that social justice warriors are vile, despicable things. as i am replying in this thread, it should be clear that thats the context i'm using when i state that calling somebody a social justice warrior is a way to dismiss everything they do by labeling them as extremists; in this context, its being used to generate the same effect as if you were to call somebody a racist.
looking at the definitions for each, even the urbandictionary definitions, i can't see how being a social justice warrior would be a bad thing, but its pretty clear from the context that its being used as a pejorative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:31PM
You really have some patience there.
I read VLM's post and what I see is someone playing dumb.
The sort of smug dumb that is, "I know exactly what that word connotes but I'm going to claim that it is a totally neutral term because I agree with the connotations of the usage and I'm right."
(Score: 1) by fleg on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:11AM
>Some folks with a militant love for political correctness went through and modded down a
>lot of perfectly good comments. Even worse, a lot of totally shit comments were modded up.
i disagree. i read at -1 and its rare for me to see posts modded up or down that dont seem
about right.
however, if you see some comment that had a points total you dont agree with it would be
useful to post a comment pointing that out and then the community could discuss it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @01:22PM
3 Q's:
1. What the hell is meant by "social justice"?
2. Are those types "warring" against or for it?
3. Are you intentionally invoking selection bias in your audience?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @10:49PM
Oh, you can speak for me on this. I insist.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @11:05PM
I am Lord Voldemort.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:06AM
mod +5 insightful (if I only had points ...)
The UI is why I came here.
its simple, clean and doesn't make your eyes bleed.
Site admins please note;
The UI works. Don't fuck with it
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:07PM
This point wasn't clear in this post, and the next follow up will address it more specifically. When I talk about the UI, I'm referring to things like the preferences area, messages, and some simple tweaks (if a user has JS enabled, having an inline reply box would likely be a net win, else have it fall back to the current form). Things like scoring and moderation could be made more clear, as well as user identification and such. Nothing like beta, just cleaning up and tweaks like we've been doing since day 1.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday October 01 2014, @08:52PM
And me. Except the primary reason I bailed out of the green site was the quality of the stories, and especially the discussions, was atrocious. The poor quality of the UI was second (I got the "classic" view - not beta - which was still bad and broken on my mobile phone). No, this place is better all round.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].