The Mighty Buzzard writes:
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?
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 is the first forum I've contributed to on a regular basis.
Hey! Me too! And I am shocked and amazed (in a good way) that you bothered to respond to my rather sarcastic post. So there may be hope for the Soylent Community after all.
But my point was (omg, here he goes, again), that some positions are modded down not just because the majority disagrees with them, but that the majority disagrees with them because they are just wrong, and as such there is no point having a debate over the issue. Take for example our MikeeUSA who repeatedly says the Bible authorizes him to kidnap young girls. Now, I, for one, disagree with this. But I do not just "have another opinion on the matter", I think that MikeeUSA needs to be found, as the FBI no doubt is already doing, because he is a pervert. Got that? Not just another opinion. A pervert. Thinking so different that there is no thinking involved. Now this is how many people think about questions like Global Warming, Obamacare, Nuclear Power, and Ayn Rand. Anyone who brings these up is just a pervert, and not worth engaging in debate, since they have their fixed position and are only interested in "swaying" more people to their cause. So, which side are you on? I look forward to reasoned debate amongst free persons.
Now this is how many people think about questions like Global Warming, Obamacare, Nuclear Power, and Ayn Rand. Anyone who brings these up is just a pervert, and not worth engaging in debate, since they have their fixed position and are only interested in "swaying" more people to their cause.
You pretty much just defined bad down-modding and group-think for me. Thank you.