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This discussion has been archived.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.
squatcho, n.:
The button at the top of a baseball cap.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:52PM
I pretty much agree with this. There is one thing I would suggest, not as a change to the moderation system, but rather as a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" when moderating a comment as something like Disagree. When someone does this but adds no comment of their own, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion. So, if anyone does add a moderation of Disagree could they please tell us why they disagree? That would give those of us following the discussion at least some idea of what specifically they objected to. Otherwise it can look as if someone is using their karma to settle some old scores after getting butt hurt in a previous discussion. Also, I've noticed on at least one occasion someone post some pretty obvious flame bait then get upmodded as Insightful. At the time I strongly suspected this poster as using a sock puppet to do that. I should think that those in charge should come down pretty hard on anyone caught doing that as it damages the credibility of the entire site.