Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by Blackmoore on Monday December 08 2014, @09:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept.

I've been hinting around about this for a week or two, so here it is. I circulated this proposal around the staff mailing list before Thanksgiving and got nobody telling me it sucks and to die in a fire, so it falls to you lot to do it if necessary. Let's be clear beforehand though. This is not a complete solution; no meta-mod consideration included for instance. Nor is it a permanent change. What it is is an experiment. Unless you lot are overwhelmingly opposed, we'll run it for a month or two and either keep it, keep parts of it, or trash it entirely based on staff and community feedback. We're not the other site and this isn't Beta; what we as a community want is what's going to happen.

So, here's the deal with the bit that's likely to be most controversial right out front. Bad downmods and mod-bombing both suck hardcore but you can't really get rid of them and still have downmods even with meta-moderation because you still have the same ideologically driven few who think Troll/Flamebait/Overrated means Disagree. To that end, I converted all the downmods to +0 mods and added a proper Disagree +0 mod. They affect neither score of the comment nor karma of the commenter but will show up beside the comment score (and be subject to user adjustment from their comments preferences page) if they hold a majority vote. It'll be entirely possible, for instance, to have a +5 Troll comment and equally possible that the same comment will show as -1 Troll to someone who has Troll set to -6 in their preferences.

Underrated and Overrated are also out. For Underrated, I for one would really like to know why you think it's underrated. For Overrated, it was almost exclusively used as Disagree, which we now have.

Second, everyone who's been registered for a month or more gets five mod points a day. We're not getting enough mods on comments to suit the number of comments; this should have been tweaked a while back but we quite frankly just let it slip through the cracks. Also, the zero-mod system will need the extra points to reliably push comments from +5 insightful to +5 Flamebait if they warrant it. We may end up tweaking this number as necessary to find the right balance during The Experiment.

Third, we're introducing a new Spam mod. As of this writing it's a -1 to comment score and a -10 to the commenter's karma; this may very well change. Sounds easily abused, yeah? Not so much. Every comment with this mod applied to it will have a link out beside the score that any staff with editor or above clearance on the main site (this excludes me by the way) can simply click to undo every aspect of the spam moderation and ban the moderator(s) who said it was from moderating. First time for a month, second time for six months; these also are arbitrary numbers that could easily change. So, what qualifies as spam so you don't inadvertently get mod-banned?

  • Proper spam. Anything whose primary purpose is advertisement.
  • HOSTS/GNAA/etc... type posts. Recurring, useless annoyances we're all familiar with.
  • Posts so offtopic and lacking value to even be a troll that they can't be called anything else. See here for an example.

Caveats about banning aside, if something is really spam, please use the mod. It will make it much, much easier for us to find spam posts and attempt to block the spammers. One SELECT statement period vs one per post level of easier.

Lastly, if I can find it and change it in time for thorough testing on dev, we'll be doing away with mod-then-post in favor of mod-and-post. Without proper downmods, there's really just no point in limiting you on when you can moderate a comment.

Right, that's pretty much it. Flame or agree as the spirit moves you. Suggestions will all be read and considered but getting them debated, coded, and tested before the January release will be a bit tricky for all but the exceedingly simple ones.

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: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 09 2014, @12:48AM

    Someone did suggest a Factually Incorrect mod a long while back. Could be worth revisiting. By all rights it should be followed by a citation though so it would be better to go in after mod-and-post does.

    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 09 2014, @01:46AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 09 2014, @01:46AM (#123997)

    I support "factually incorrect", but also the ability to positively mod someone with a great reply to one of my comments (dangerous if abused, frustrating right now). Post-and-mod will take care of the second one.

  • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday December 09 2014, @01:32PM

    by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday December 09 2014, @01:32PM (#124159)

    It will just be abused by people who won't alter their existing world view no matter what, and so conclude that the poster must be factually incorrect since they can't possibly be.

    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:17PM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {}> on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:17PM (#124352) Journal

    And what if a certain group doesn't LIKE the facts, hmmm? Go to Slash and look at a Linux article and see how quick the bullshit piles up, it quickly turns into the circle of loon [] but there as here there are a few that worship the great GNU and for those the only "facts" that count are the ones that support their own biases. its like debating a scientologist and pointing out the universe isn't 100 billion trillion years old, doesn't matter that facts show that isn't so because that is what they believe so fuck you.

    So for your idea to work one would have to decide what counts as a "fact" and what does not. Does regular websites count? What about Wikipedia? Do you need 1 page to count as a fact or 2? 3? The parameters would have to be defined otherwise you could just go to the blogosphere and find any looney to back you up, hell I could probably find 3 sites that support the Timecube for the love of pete.

    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.