Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Meta
posted by martyb on Friday June 25, @12:50PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the The-Mod-Squad dept.

There has been some discussion about moderation on this site leading to some misconceptions and misstatements. This story is an attempt to set things straight. It lays out the historical underpinnings for moderation, history of its implementation on Slashdot, and its later refinement on SoylentNews.

Before that, though, I am going to take this opportunity to thank fnord666 who is out Alternate Editor-in-Chief. I could not handle the load alone and his efforts have made a huge difference! Further, please join me in thanking him as he reached a new milestone: over 6,500 stories posted to the site! Many a late night or rare free moment has been generously given to the site. Teamwork++!

History:
The code for this site is a fork of code written for Slashdot. In that site's early days, it was apparent that some comments were much more interesting and informative than others. It was just as apparent that some users would just as gleefully troll the community. Moderation was conceived as a way to sift the wheat from the chaff and help users more easily avoid the "lesser" comments and more easily find the "gems".

Further, to encourage posting "good" comments, Karma was introduced. "Good" comments earned Karma; "bad" comments lost Karma. Moderation was a mechanism by which Karma could be allocated.

Slashdot experimented with several ways to moderate comments. First, it was just the staff who could moderate. Soon, there were too many comments to keep up, so a select group of members from the community were invited to moderate comments. Again, that failed to scale up, so those who had been selected were invited to recommend still other users to moderate. And, again, there were scaling issues.

Solution: make Mod Points (modpoints) available to every registered user in good standing and who indicated in their preferences that they were willing to moderate.

Originally, mod points were handed out randomly and expired after something like 6 hours: "Use 'em or lose 'em".

For the most part, that seemed to work. But there were some perceived issues and meta-moderation was implemented and introduced — moderate the moderations. Unfortunately, it experienced many of the same issues that it was supposed to rectify with comments, just one level abstracted. Further, it was unwieldy and when all was said and done, didn't work all that well, anyway.

Early Tweaking:
Such was the state of things when SoylentNews started. Well sort of. The code base we started with was not current and the meta-moderation code was broken. So much so, that meta-moderation was ripped out of the code just so regular moderation could be made to work. With that behind us, we finally we had a working moderation system on our site. Yay!

That worked okay for a while, but we found ourselves with complaints from many users that they wanted to moderate and lacked mod points. Nice problem to have, right? This was combined with many more comments than moderations. It was thought that we needed more mod points made available to the community. So, after unsuccessfully tweaking the mod point allocation algorithm, it was decided to just not expire mod points until day's end. Every user in good standing got 5 mod points each morning (00:10 UTC) and those were available until day's end whereupon any remaining modpoints were reset and a new set of 5 of modpoints were allocated.

That helped! But jerks will be jerks.

Mod Bombs:
We started to run into problems with "mod bombs" where one user "A" would apply all 5 of their mod points to downmod one other user "B". So code was written to allow checking for such moderations. Staff could generate a report and find such activity. It was decided that:

If you used ALL of your modpoints to downmod ONE user, that was a modbomb. IOW, 5 downmods bad; 4 downmods were permitted.

Initially, anyone who "modbombed" was manually given a "timeout". The first time earned a one month suspension of moderation privileges. A second occurrence earned a six month suspension.

Later, because there were still many more comments than moderations, the number of modpoints allocated to each registered user having good Karma was increased from 5 to 10 per day. The modbomb threshold was, however, kept the same: 4 downmods was still okay, 5 (or more) downmods to the same user was "bad".

A complication arose in that there is no easy way for users to keep track of how many downmods they had made on one other user. User "A" may do 3 downmods of user "B" in the morning and 4 down mods of other (unrelated) users. In the afternoon they might perform 2 more downmods of user "B". Purely unintentional transgression. When you only have 5 mod points it was reasonable to assume that a user could mentally track how many times they downmodded a single user in one day. With 10 daily mod points available, that became less reasonable.

So, along with the allocation of 10 modpoints per day (easy) it was intended to have code written that would kick in when processing moderations: when the threshold was exceeded, the excess downmods would be automatically rejected. And that is still the intent.

The upshot of all that is that when checking for modbombs, we no longer give a "timeout" for 5 downmods against a single user in one day. We just revert the excess mods. We do take note of repeated excesses and are fully prepared to issue a "timeout" when warranted. (e.g. 8 downmods in one day, or several days in close proximity targeting the same user. This is not done unilaterally but rather in consultation with other staff for confirmation.)

Sock Bombs:
First, there some who failed to take the hint that, maybe, they should take a look at what they were posting when they received repeated downmods. We are a community, not your personal soapbox. So, they created new ("sock puppet") accounts and proceeded to upmod their own comments, aka a "sockbomb". Staff have ways to note such behavior based on the IPID and SUBNETID that is recorded with every comment and every moderation. We try to give the benefit of the doubt. But, certain patterns do become apparent and are not tolerated. Upmodding your own comment is grounds for an immediate moderation ban.

Second, just as there is a limit on how many downmods can be targeted at one user in a day, so there is a limit on upmods. The same limits apply, each user "A" is limited to 4 upmods of user "B" in a given day, just like for "modbombs". Again with the caveat of no up-mods of your own account..

Summary:
Our experience is that the current system could stand some refinement, automation of transgression detection and mitigation is in plan (but it will be a while), but for the most part, what we have works well in the vast majority of cases. In short, Wheaton's Law still applies: "don't be a dick". Following that seems to work the best for the most. (With apologies to anyone named Richard. =)


Original Submission

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.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @12:57PM (75 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @12:57PM (#1149057)

    Modpoints are a legacy of patriarchal colonialism and only serve to silence the voice of racialized minorities.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @12:59PM (74 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @12:59PM (#1149060)

      >> only serve to silence the voice of racialized minorities.

      You mean White Republicans, or people to stupid to use preview to check their spelling? Either way it's not a problem, just self-identify as a pink hair and you can post whatever inflammatory remarks you want.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday June 25, @01:19PM (67 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @01:19PM (#1149068) Journal

        Ah, but if we got rid of modpoints how would we mark your entirely unwanted and redundant contribution appropriately? You have both just demonstrated perfectly why such a system must remain.

        --
        It's always my fault...
        • (Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Friday June 25, @01:21PM (1 child)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @01:21PM (#1149069) Journal

          Ah, looking more closely I notice that both comments are from the same person - so you appear to be having an argument with yourself...

          --
          It's always my fault...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:54PM (#1149401)

            As are you.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Friday June 25, @01:23PM (40 children)

          by looorg (578) on Friday June 25, @01:23PM (#1149070)

          Or you know we could remove anonymous posting. That would solve that problem to.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Taxi Dudinous on Friday June 25, @01:53PM (31 children)

            by Taxi Dudinous (8690) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @01:53PM (#1149081)

            It is not easy to mod with integrity. I try to make sure I do not mod simply according to my personal opinion. As a result I often choose to not mod a post at all. I also make it a point to upmod posts that are compelling, even if I disagree. I appreciate the many different thought provoking opinions that are expressed here. Mods. No Mods. This is a decent community. Even the trolls are kind of nice.

            Oops.

            Stepped in some troll poo.
            What have you people been feeding them? ;-)

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Friday June 25, @02:07PM (15 children)

              by looorg (578) on Friday June 25, @02:07PM (#1149085)

              I'm not saying it's a great idea. Just that it might be an idea, that may or may not be worth trying or testing. If they didn't exists mod points could be spent on actual accounts instead of trying to have some AC mod-battle. That said it's not a perfect solution, after all nothing stops you from having multiple sockpuppet accounts that you just switch in and out of or register a new one once the old once gets banned etc. But still that requires a bit more work for your trolling or puppeteering. Also sometimes having AC posting is nice, so it's not that its entirely without merit. Perhaps it's an abuse vs benefit thing that have to be weighed. In some regard it is since they start out at 0 points so they can just be ignored to start out with.

              I try to spend most of my points every day, but it doesn't always happen. I mostly tend to ignore AC posts, I don't even think I have notification for them if they would respond to something I wrote. It's quite rare that I bother to mod an AC, but sometimes they are interesting and great and then I don't mind lifting it up. But I do admit a preference for modding people that actually bothered to login.

              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Friday June 25, @02:13PM (9 children)

                by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @02:13PM (#1149087) Journal

                There are many calm, rational, informative and insightful things posted by AC these days. It would be a pity to lose that.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:43PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:43PM (#1149100)

                  you're playing with fire...

                • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:44PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:44PM (#1149102)

                  There are many calm, rational, informative and insightful things posted by AC these days.

                  Oh, what has the world became these days. ACs post "calm, rational, informative and insightful things", hackers no longer abide by rfc3514.

                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday June 25, @03:13PM (6 children)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @03:13PM (#1149114) Journal

                  I agree, and I for one would be very reluctant to go down the path of stopping ACs from posting at all. As another has just pointed out, creating another 'live' account is simple to do and we would be back to square 1, but we would be giving those ACs mod points too.

                  One solution to get around this is that creating a live account still requires an email address, but using that account to post could be delayed by 24/48 hours. There are simple ways of overcoming this too so we just end up in a silly cycle of measure versus countermeasure, which requires a lot of work from the support team.

                  The current solution of modding trolls etc downwards is the best solution that anyone has come up with so far, and without a current active dev we cannot today make any code changes to Rehash.

                  --
                  It's always my fault...
                  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:59PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:59PM (#1149139)

                    The obvious solution is to require all AC accounts to be created from a secure operating system protected by TPM 2.0, like the upcoming Windows 11, and then requiring ACs to send a notarized copy of their passport and/or driver's license in with a sample of their DNA for verification to ensure they haven't been using another AC account.

                    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday June 25, @05:30PM

                      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @05:30PM (#1149184) Journal

                      Priti Patel, is that you?

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:47PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:47PM (#1149197)

                      also the monitor built-in camera needs to be ON when pressing "submit"!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @03:43PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @03:43PM (#1149660)

                      Stop giving social media sitea ideas.

                      No
                        Wait. Some already do this kind of thing...

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @09:23PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @09:23PM (#1149752)
                        Many employers already do that. But it's so easy to say "the camera isn't working."
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @11:24PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @11:24PM (#1149782)

                    I agree that there is sometimes a need for anonymous postings, so perhaps allow anonymous posts by logged in users...

                    When a logged in user wants to post anonymously, they tick an anonymous box and their nick is not shown with the post but any mods should still affect their karma.

                    We could have another name displayed for 'logged in anonymous' so that readers can tell the difference between true ACs and logged in ACs.

                    All true AC posts would automatically get a low initial mod score and 'logged in AC' postings would get an initial mod points based on the users karma just like a normal post.

                    I would hope that this would only need a relatively minor change to the code.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:39PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:39PM (#1149161)

                ACs are easy to filter out. No reason to ban them. They tried at the green site, it didn't last, but you still have to be logged in to post AC, so they can still track you

                Downmodding should carry a higher cost than upmodding. The ones doing the most complaining are also doing the most downmodding. They resent being outvoted. We know who they are, don't we?

                Overall the system works, even on the other site, even though they're so damn stingy, it's better than the "thumbs up/down" count they do in the mass media tabloids.

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:01PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:01PM (#1149173)

                  Why are you being such a fucking nazi? The modding system more or less works. Whoever posts the repetitive J-word or N-word garbage is almost always modded to -1. The rest is just regular jostling and bantering among grown up people who can fire off some thoughts without having to craft it into an entire consistent philosophy like the Brand Name(tm) douchebags.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:44PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:44PM (#1149195)

                    Overall the system works...

                    The modding system more or less works...

                    Yeah, I think I said that. Can you confirm for me please, before getting all excited?

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:38PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:38PM (#1149277)

                      Just keep your damn government hands of my voting rights.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:13PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:13PM (#1149300)
                or give users 1 mod point a day. Scarcity makes them more valuable, so less likely to be wasted.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:41PM (#1149098)

              It is not easy counterproductive to mod with integrity.

              Too boring, as it comes.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday June 25, @03:14PM (2 children)

              by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Friday June 25, @03:14PM (#1149117)

              I make it a goal, not claiming to succeed, to mod up people who contradict me and offer good facts or good arguments to back themselves up.

              • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:03PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:03PM (#1149140)

                No you don't. The fact that you haven't modded this comment to "4, insightful" proves that conclusively.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:02PM (#1149175)

                Thanks for sharing your goal. That's what I come here for, to hear someone tell me their goal.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Friday June 25, @03:46PM

              by Snotnose (1623) on Friday June 25, @03:46PM (#1149130)

              It is not easy to mod with integrity. I try to make sure I do not mod simply according to my personal opinion.

              I go the opposite way when I mod. I'll often mark something interesting or insightful while thinking "damn skippy!"

              It never occurred to me to keep track of who I was modding, up or down. I just mod the comment. Then again, I mod maybe 5 comments a week so it doesn't really apply to me.

              And creating a different account just to mod my own comment? That is a whole new level of assholiness.

              --
              Why can't I age like a fine wine, instead of last week's milk?
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Tork on Friday June 25, @04:11PM (6 children)

              by Tork (3914) on Friday June 25, @04:11PM (#1149146)
              One thing that happens to me a lot here, it's actually part of the reason I come back frequently, is that I'll ask a question and I'll get a good answer to it. So I'm trying to get in the habit of modding the reply Insightful or something like that. I do wish there was a way, at least in that circumstance, that it can be made clear that I'm the one who did it... only because replying with 'thanks' feels like I'm just filling the thread with filler.

              I guess I'm saying I wish we had a 'like' button, but maybe I'm worrying too much about replying with 'thanks'...?
              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
              • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:03PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:03PM (#1149176)

                You mean you want your virtue to be signaled. Shut up and mod, shithead.

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 25, @05:57PM (4 children)

                  by Tork (3914) on Friday June 25, @05:57PM (#1149203)

                  Yes, thanking someone for their time is 'virtue signaling' today. 🙄

                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:36PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:36PM (#1149274)

                    Don't sweat it, meatbag. We bots have all the time in the world.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:51PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:51PM (#1149287)
                      "We AC's post all the great comments!"
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:19PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:19PM (#1149304)
                    Nowadays EVERYTHING is virtue-signalling to someone insecure. Same as blaming purple-haired trans coders for writing most of the software today (another way of saying "they're taking our jerbs").
                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 25, @08:31PM

                      by Tork (3914) on Friday June 25, @08:31PM (#1149306)

                      My favorite is being called a hypocrite by someone who suddenly doesn't consider that a big character flaw when they have to defend against it.

                      --
                      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Friday June 25, @05:31PM (1 child)

              by crafoo (6639) on Friday June 25, @05:31PM (#1149186)

              I like to use the disagree mod option when it's appropriate. I think it's a wonderful option to have and I like how it is handled in the system.

              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 25, @07:40PM

                by Tork (3914) on Friday June 25, @07:40PM (#1149279)
                I agree but I would like to suggest that maybe 'disagree' doesn't actually appear until the person who modded it Disagree responds to that post.
                --
                Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 25, @06:57PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @06:57PM (#1149254) Journal

              It's much appreciated. Your approach should be the gold standard to moderation.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:46PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:46PM (#1149131)

            Do that (get rid of anonymous posting), and you will get rid of a lot of good comments. I for one will leave the site, and I think many others will too. Privacy matters, despite how people have been trained by the corporations that took over the web.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 25, @04:14PM (2 children)

              by Tork (3914) on Friday June 25, @04:14PM (#1149147)

              Do that (get rid of anonymous posting), and you will get rid of a lot of good comments. I for one will leave the site, and I think many others will too. Privacy matters, despite how people have been trained by the corporations that took over the web.

              You've got a signal-to-noise ratio problem, here.

              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:05PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:05PM (#1149178)

                Your the noise in this equation.

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 25, @05:59PM

                  by Tork (3914) on Friday June 25, @05:59PM (#1149207)
                  "No, ur." 🙄
                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:42PM (#1149314)

              I'm not really sure why the admins don't just start a subreddit as mods and ditch all this hosting and begging for money nonsense.

              As it stands, this site (despite the intellectually dishonest people here saying that "good" dissent is rewarded) only rewards submitters and participants who write positively of Judeo-Globalist talking points. The unwritten definition of "don't be a dick" is "don't bother to disagree with Judeo-Globalist talking points or thy comment score will never clear zero even if some mod up." More obvious examples are that criticism of vaccination is heavily punished (and has been since this place existed), nowadays mods hide behind the excuse of "dispensing false medical advice." Or not pointing things out about China or Israel because criticism of foreign governments is now considered racial bigotry. There's also lots of Trump derangement syndrome.

              People always talk about all kinds of good users leaving because of trolls, or something. No, they left because they wanted SN to be a hugbox like Reddit, where anybody who challenges their viewpoints would be silenced for being "mean," or something. Well, present or not the crybabies ultimately got their wish. Which beings me back to Reddit: If people want to use Slash and be subject to worshipping the sacred cows of Judeo-Globalism, they can get a better experience at Slashdot. Otherwise, this place is just another Reddit except with more begging. Again, migrating this site to Reddit would be beneficial for a few reasons:

              - Most if not all users here are already familiar with the Reddit ecosystem
              - Most "users" on Reddit are bots or bot-farms, so again, Reddit is a drop-in replacement for SN.
              - Terms of subreddit use are pretty much "You can get modded down or banned for any reason." People here at SN need to stop pretending that dissenting opinions are tolerated and publicly embrace their true selves.
              - Staff could still beg for donations, and get that money to the volunteers instead of the overhead. With no overhead, non-profits can skim profits like a motherfucker.
              - Reddit is already full of woke social justice warriors, BLM supporters, and the corporate-approved authoritarian fringe; opening up the possibility for more users (more potential donors) through cross-pollination.
               

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @09:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @09:28PM (#1149341)

              Indeed, Slashdot making it hard to post as AC is why I came here. Would be a shame to need to find another home.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @06:49AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @06:49AM (#1149527)

              If you think your posts here are private when AC, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @06:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @06:52PM (#1149246)

            You could, but that would both remove the worst posts on the site as well as the best posts. Having seen the kind of posts that get modded one way or another, I don't think that banning anonymous comments would do much to improve the situation.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:10PM (18 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @08:10PM (#1149296)

          Moderation was conceived as a way to sift the wheat from the chaff and help users more easily avoid the "lesser" comments and more easily find the "gems".

          TMB already established that the vast majority of users read at either 0 or -1, so mod points fail in their stated goal. Keeping something that doesn't work, and encourages the bad behaviour outlined in the article, is downright stupid.

          Stupid is as stupid does. There's a reason most social media sites allow up-voting. it rewards trolls, which increases "user engagement." Same as user moderation has done since the beginning (as acknowledged in the article - I'm repeating this because it cannot be emphasized enough. Doesn't separate the wheat from the chaff and encourages bad behaviour - the worst solution. Even yanking moderation would be better.

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 25, @11:36PM (17 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @11:36PM (#1149391) Journal

            Even yanking moderation would be better.

            Funny that most people suggesting that are ACs. Now, I wonder why that should be....? Could it be that by choosing to post as AC they do not get the opportunity to moderate, or have journals where they can discuss any topic that they choose rather than having to break into a published story and trample all over it? Of course, all of these can be solved by simply logging in.

            it rewards trolls, which increases "user engagement."

            If a comment is marked as troll or flamebait it rarely contributes positively to the discussion. I most certainly do not view it as 'user engagement'. Perhaps we are looking for different things from a site.

            --
            It's always my fault...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @03:54AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @03:54AM (#1149493)

              Could it be that by choosing to post as AC they do not get the opportunity to moderate, or have journals where they can discuss any topic that they choose rather than having to break into a published story and trample all over it? Of course, all of these can be solved by simply logging in.

              Are you being intentionally thick again? Users can still post anonymously. Or just open up a tab in incognito mode. Or use a second device. Or temporarily log out. So people can post AC and still moderate, have journals, etc.

              Anyone who believes that registered users aren't at least sometimes posting anonymously is delusional. And posting from another device without logging in guarantees that getting your post mod-bombed doesn't affect your karma, so probably a smart move if you know your post is going to attract ire from the usual suspects.

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 26, @05:36AM (1 child)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 26, @05:36AM (#1149516) Journal
                None of what you have written counters the statement that I have written. Yes all those things are possible but, while as AC, they can do the things that I have stated.
                --
                It's always my fault...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @09:37PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @09:37PM (#1149755)
                  Bullishit. They can be logged in one one devitand post anonymously from another device with ease. Pretty much everyone who has a computer also has a smartphone. So they can post anonymously from their cell phone provider and logged in from their ISP at the same time. Everything I posted was easy as shit to do. And since it's different networks, you would never know, even when looking through the logs.

                  A lot of people at work use their phones instead of the company network because they don't want their boss snooping on them. Also, sometimes it's just easier to grab your phone to look up something you bookmarked rather than be arsed finding it again on the desktop:

                  Times and tech have changed, old man. You need to adjust your expectations of what is easy and what is inconvenient accordingly.

                  Tell us what magic pixie dust you use that can detect simultaneous users from separate networks on separate devices, one logged in, the other anonymously with no history of ever logging in. Or admit that it's easy, convenient, and you were wrong.

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday June 26, @08:13AM (2 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday June 26, @08:13AM (#1149548) Journal

              Strange there is no mention of the #Freearistarchus movement on SoylentNews! TMB objected that aristarchus was painting all "conservatives" with a broad brush, by conflating them with the alt-right. Turns out, after the insurrection in the Capitol of the United States, that aristarchus was right. But SN was complicit in the riot by the alt-right, by censoring nearly all his submissions warning how dangerous the alt-wrong stupidity could be. Now janrinok may say this is "politics", but I expect as much from MI-4, or lower. The problems with SoylentNews go far deeper than snowflake libertarians being burned. It is a systemic bias against reality, and the well known leftist bias of reality. (Oh, am I "Bob Dole"-ing myself? Sorry! )

              --
              You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
              • (Score: 2, Troll) by janrinok on Saturday June 26, @10:16AM (1 child)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 26, @10:16AM (#1149573) Journal

                You were not censored. You have a journal in which you can print anything that you wish. Dress it up however you like, but you were NOT censored.

                Your comments might well have been modded down by the community, often because they appeared off-topic in stories entirely unrelated to the point you were trying to make. Few of your submissions may have been accepted, but that is because they simply became repetitive. Those that you submitted on topics other than your anti-alt-right theme were usually accepted. As martyb has already pointed out - this site is nobody's personal soap box. If you recall, I often annotated your submission rejections with the advice to put them into your journal. That you chose not to is entirely your decision. I can see why you might not do so - perhaps you felt that in your journal they would receive relatively little coverage because many people simply were not interested. If you want to push your political views why don't you join a site where that is a topic of discussion?

                Using your logic, you rarely criticise the Chinese for their actions against the Uighurs - so does that make you supportive of the Chinese? I don't recall you ever objecting to the lack of facilities for disabled and handicapped people. Does that mean that you feel that such people deserve to be left out of many parts of society? Using a quick cursory search I cannot find where you condemn the lack of medical care for poor people in America; I therefore conclude by using your logic you think that such a thing is entirely appropriate. Lack of support for your particular views does not equate to support of the opposite viewpoint.

                SN was not complicit in supporting the alt-right, or the left wing, or any other part of the political spectrum. Individuals who work on the staff are as entitled to their opinion as any other member of our community, and they can express it in their comments. But nobody on the staff has ever directed the editorial content in any specific direction, nor do I know of any instance where an individual editor displayed a bias in his or her story selection.

                --
                It's always my fault...
                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 26, @08:01PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday June 26, @08:01PM (#1149731) Journal

                  I am going to try, once again, to explain to you, my dear janrinok.

                  Your comments might well have been modded down by the community, often because they appeared off-topic in stories entirely unrelated to the point you were trying to make.

                  Actually this is hardly ever true. On occasion, for sure, but always a finely targeted off-topic comment that makes a relevent point about the story. And my overall karma is usually maxxed out, except when Runaway or khallow, or certain eds get angry at me.

                  Few of your submissions may have been accepted, but that is because they simply became repetitive.

                  How could they be repetitive when they are not accepted? The only reason it looks that way (and only to those who have access to rejected subs) is that they were rejected, so I submitted more similar submissions. And, they almost always were new stories.

                  Those that you submitted on topics other than your anti-alt-right theme were usually accepted.

                  Not. Many seem to be rejected based solely on the submitter, namely, aristarchus. Once is a while there might be a string of acceptances when a non-biased ed is on duty, but they are soon pulled into line.

                  As martyb has already pointed out - this site is nobody's personal soap box.

                  But it does have a right-leaning, pseudo-libertarian editorial bias, not surprising for an allegedly "tech" site. Unfortunately, it tends to go off the deep end, and to censor anything slightly leftish. I object not to the box, but to the ground beneath it.

                  If you recall, I often annotated your submission rejections with the advice to put them into your journal. That you chose not to is entirely your decision. I can see why you might not do so - perhaps you felt that in your journal they would receive relatively little coverage because many people simply were not interested.

                  Someone just dinged you in this thread for your emphasis on popularity, as if SN were an ad-driven site. Little coverage? My journal entries are about the only thing recently that goes into triple digit comments, but really the amount of attention is not the point. The point is rational discussion, and the exposing of dastardly mendacity of fake-news mongering imbeciles.

                  If you want to push your political views why don't you join a site where that is a topic of discussion?

                  Near original member of SoylentNews. I am here to BuckFeta! I, too, am interested in science and technology. It was only after I was censored at the insistence of The Mighty Buzzard that I was launched on a crusade to save SN from an alt-right infarction.

                  --
                  You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @02:48PM (8 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @02:48PM (#1149647)

              Even yanking moderation would be better.

              Funny that most people suggesting that are ACs.

              I'm going to take this opportunity to remind you of what you wrote up-thread - that it would be a shame to get rid of AC posting because some of the best comments are from ACs.

              You can't have it both ways - denigrating AC posters and lauding thrm.

              It reminds me of when, in the discussion of CMS alternatives, I told you to learn to code, and you cited your experience - NONE of it relevant to web development. You are seriously out of date and refuse to consider any changes because to you change is a threat. Same as TMB.

              That's what happens when people get old and ossify. Mustn't even consider getting rid of anonymous posting, or the broken and never-was-fit-for-purpose mod points scheme or swapping out perl or even doing all the functions of real editors (which includes censorship of hate speech on broadcast TV, print media, and in the EU, online).

              Circumstances change. You don't. And you refuse to acknowledge it. Not something to be proud of, but Dunning kruger will have the final say.

              And before you get in a hissy fit, you're the one who doesn't want to get rid of anonymous posting. Because it's often the most insightful.

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 26, @04:05PM (7 children)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 26, @04:05PM (#1149667) Journal

                The point still stands - in many cases it is those that cannot moderate who want the system scrapping. I support the input from many ACs who contribute to the stories here. There is no contradiction between these two statements. I am not denigrating ACs at all, but those of us who DO benefit from the moderation system are not the ones who are usually asking to get rid of it. It is almost though they resent other people from having something that they haven't.

                It reminds me of when, in the discussion of CMS alternatives, I told you to learn to code, and you cited your experience - NONE of it relevant to web development. You are seriously out of date and refuse to consider any changes because to you change is a threat.

                There has not been a problem caused by the current CMS for quite a long time. For the moment, and without any active developer on the team, changing it is a waste of our scarce resources. We do not have the capacity at present to do a complete rewrite of the site. However, we DO have a problem with the system configuration that we have adopted over recent years. We do have sys-admins on the team. Fortunately, they have been able to get us up and running fairly quickly and they are now reconfiguring the systems that we use to make them more robust by removing those elements that we no longer need - including the one that HAS caused several failures over the last few years.

                I have 2 personal sites/servers which use a modern CMS (1 x flask and 1 x Django) which I have written myself in Python3 and which are working satisfactorily. If you re-read my experience you will see that I mention Python there too. I cannot be held responsible if you fail to read the information presented to you. I can and do program most days, thank you. However, if you are volunteering your time to write a replacement for our Perl code by producing a CMS then you are welcome to join us. And as I said last time we had this conversation you seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't take you long at all. We will quite happily wait for you to write it.

                Circumstances change. You don't. And you refuse to acknowledge it.

                Not true at all. For the last few years I have been a full-time carer for my wife which is why I contributed less to the site than before. My circumstances have now changed and I have returned in an editorial role again. I am not responsible for development, nor sys-admin, or any of the other roles that are required to maintain a site. I am merely an editor. But we do consider - as a team - all aspects of the site's operation. We have discussed ACs - and for the moment can see no major advantage in stopping ACs from contributing. If we were to do such a thing, we would lose some valuable members of our community, and those who simply want to disrupt the site will simply create numerous false accounts and continue to do whatever you seem to think they do at the moment which justifies their removal. We are looking at the long-term future of the site and the software changes that will undoubtedly be necessary to support it - including a maintainable CMS. But that is beyond our current capacity and will have to wait a little longer. We are looking at the problem of staffing, but while many in our community complain about how the site is today, very few want to help us change it into something better.

                Please don't get into a hissy fit - but learn to read before you come back repeating the same suggestions that you made last time. We can only do whatever is possible within our current resources.

                --
                It's always my fault...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @10:16PM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @10:16PM (#1149764)
                  For most people, "quite some time" means more than just a month or two.

                  And anyone can post anonymously on one network one one device, and logged in on another network on another device, simultaneously. So they have access to journals, mod points, etc.

                  All while being able to post anonymously on. a second device on a separate network that they never logged in from.

                  Seriously, how many users do you think don't have a cell phone with separate internet access? Completely different networks, network providers, IP ranges, browsers (so no browser fingerprint to match).

                  You still think Fuck Beta is relevant. You think that by fighting against dropping user moderation it will have a catastrophic effect, because … [citatio needed]. Inertia. resistance to change. Same with every other possible change.

                  Even logged in people are anonymous unless they reveal their real-life name. So requiring people to log in has sweet fuck all to do with anonymity, and more to do with "can't be arsed to."

                  So the supposed "loss of anonymity" that would come with disabling anonymous posting is 100% bullshit. And it's the same fact-free bs that khallow subscribes to in his opposition to removing anonymous posting.

                  There's plenty of throwaway email addresses available, so an email address doesn't tie you to an identity.

                  But you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Or new perspectives and possibilities.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 27, @12:52AM (5 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 27, @12:52AM (#1149803) Journal

                    So the supposed "loss of anonymity" that would come with disabling anonymous posting is 100% bullshit. And it's the same fact-free bs that khallow subscribes to in his opposition to removing anonymous posting.

                    Except, of course, that the "loss of anonymity" is there by definition not by subscription.

                    And the "they'll troll with their cell phones!" is quite the compelling argument.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @02:32AM (4 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @02:32AM (#1149845)
                      Your reply is a complete load of nonsense. And you know it. Everyone has a smartphone. Most internet access now is done on smartphones. so if you're sitting at your office computer and logged in and you want to say something that you know will attract bad mods, it's childs play to post from your phone.

                      It may be just to avoid people who make a habit of targeting you. As in "the ho needs the aggravation?"

                      And neither the journals nor mod points is an incentive for many people to bother creating an account.

                      Moderation has always been problematic, to say the least. Getting rid of it and encouraging people to express their opinion of a post by actually posting a reply is obviously much better. Moderation is for lazy inarticulate people who can't be arsed to explain why they hold a certain view, or don't want to admit they are wrong but still want some payback.

                      If moderation is so important, why not create shadow accounts for anonymous posters, complete with karma and the ability to moderate? Each shadow account would have an auto-generated identifier, such as AC1234, AC1235, etc. And journals. and a posting history. And mod points.

                      Give them the ability to claim the account and change the name, problem solved (if you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that moderation and journals are so important). Or give reasons why moderation and journals aren't that important after all. Your move.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 27, @06:02AM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 27, @06:02AM (#1149879) Journal

                        Moderation has always been problematic, to say the least.

                        Funny how I've been on Slashdot since 2000 and here since 2014, and I have yet to have a problem with moderation - somehow I just never get mod bombed. My good posts get modded up, my trolls get modded down. Everything working as expected for longer than you've been out of diapers. So to say the least, moderation isn't significantly problematic.

                        If moderation is so important, why not create shadow accounts for anonymous posters, complete with karma and the ability to moderate? Each shadow account would have an auto-generated identifier, such as AC1234, AC1235, etc. And journals. and a posting history. And mod points.

                        Is that suggestion supposed to go somewhere? Seems a bit non sequiturish to me. Might as well suggest we make the Moon out of purple cheese - because moderation is so important, of course.

                        I'll note the habit of spammers to game freebies. Try surfing this [soylentnews.org]. There's already spammers trying to milk the system via journal posting - we just don't see them because of the modest activity threshold required to write journals that are visible to the outside world. Why make a system that's easy to exploit? We already know it would be a bad idea.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @12:35PM (2 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @12:35PM (#1149932)
                          Read the article. It's quite clear that moderation encourages bad behaviour. Heck, just read the title.

                          Again, if user moderation is so great, why not open it to non-registered users? You already have registered users gaming the system (RTFA). So what's the difference. And most registered users are de facto anonymous - you don't see them posting under their legal names - so what is the difference?

                          You're making a distinction without a difference. Fact: Most registered users are anonymous. They don't use their full legal name. And then they have the nerve to say that ACs are cowards. While saying it would be "dangerous" to post under their real identity. Teuly hypocritical cowards.

                          So what your position comes down to is (a) when push comes to shove, moderation isn't important enough to extend to everyone, (b) that most registered users are de facto anonymous cowards too afraid to use their real names, (c) a real name policy for allowing pisting would encourage people to self-police rather than posting unbridled hate speech because of rwal-world consequences, (d) there is zero proof that requiring people to register to post will drive a significant portion of posters away, and (e) when offered the solution of creating accounts for everyone to avoid this, you reject it.

                          Truly Alice in Wonderland logic.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 27, @11:32PM (1 child)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 27, @11:32PM (#1150140) Journal

                            Read the article. It's quite clear that moderation encourages bad behaviour.

                            I did. And what I observe in the real world is that there's not a lot of incentive in this system to do this sort of bad behavior. It's work, and you don't get much out of it, especially when admins run interference.

                            You're making a distinction without a difference. Fact: Most registered users are anonymous. They don't use their full legal name. And then they have the nerve to say that ACs are cowards. While saying it would be "dangerous" to post under their real identity. Teuly hypocritical cowards.

                            To be fair, it doesn't take much nerve.

                            So what your position comes down to is (a) when push comes to shove, moderation isn't important enough to extend to everyone, (b) that most registered users are de facto anonymous cowards too afraid to use their real names, (c) a real name policy for allowing pisting would encourage people to self-police rather than posting unbridled hate speech because of rwal-world consequences, (d) there is zero proof that requiring people to register to post will drive a significant portion of posters away, and (e) when offered the solution of creating accounts for everyone to avoid this, you reject it.

                            You're nobody. Literally. We have no idea who you are. So no use trying to extend moderation when we aren't keeping track of you.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, @07:04AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, @07:04AM (#1150252)

                              It's probably Ari, again!

            • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday June 26, @08:06PM (1 child)

              by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 26, @08:06PM (#1149732)

              Perhaps it's the other way around: they stay as ACs instead of logging in because they see no value in moderation?

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @11:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @11:11PM (#1149779)
                I don't bother logging in because I am too lazy to. The benefits (journal and mod points) don't meet the inertia. Adults realize that mod points mean squat. And there are plenty of blogging platforms out there.

                Sure, I could create an account, but WHY? I could create one using a pseudonym , but there's no real value to that, because I don't think friends, family, and coworkers would be able to filter out the crap, so "why are you posting THERE?"

                I could post with my real name, but then random people searching for me would come upon this place. And judge me negatively because this site is quite retrograde. Because people do judge you by the company you keep.

                Of course if everyone had to post using their verified real name a lot of the rightwing libertarian and racist crap would just disappear.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:56PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:56PM (#1149404)

          Ah, but if we got rid of modpoints how would we mark your entirely unwanted and redundant contribution appropriately? You have both just demonstrated perfectly why such a system must remain.

          The obvious way - tell you so in a reply to your post. For example, this post points out that mod points aren't necessary to tell you you're wrong in thinking that mod points are needed to let a poster know what you think. Read the article and note theblong history of problems with mod points. They're simply redundant, and given that the vast majority read at 0or -1, they don't even serve the original purpose of filtering out the dross.

          Now isn't that better than just modding your post "disagree"? If only because it laysbout WHY? and moderation doesn't?

          • (Score: 2, Troll) by https on Saturday June 26, @05:02PM (3 children)

            by https (5248) on Saturday June 26, @05:02PM (#1149684)

            Nazis (all stripes of fascists, but nazis especially) regularly post the stupidest, most ridiculous bollocks. Stuff that regular folk think, "this need rebutting. I need to rebut this." But that normally sensible urge comes at a price:

            Fascists love being debated. [twitter.com] Public demonstrations of their beliefs that they are the ones who must be convinced delight them.

            They love to watch us use reason to chase them, as they hop from one rationale to another, to another, to another, none of which they actually believe.

            The "why" of it that you think is there, is that some people are not posting in good faith and deserve nothing but being drowned out. And, in the case of nazis, punched.

            --
            Offended and laughing about it.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 27, @12:43PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 27, @12:43PM (#1149934) Journal
              Contrary to assertion, the problem isn't with the alleged Nazis, most who are merely taking a stance because it bugs you, but with those "regular folk" who can see stuff they disagree with, but haven't yet developed the communication skills to properly debate someone who is trolling them.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @03:15PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @03:15PM (#1149968)

              Oh no, the "Nazis" are talking! We need to commit crimes against them!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, @07:06AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, @07:06AM (#1150253)

                It is called the "Nuremburg Tribunal", and it is justice, not crimes. Do you know how many Nazis swung?

      • (Score: 2) by martyb on Friday June 25, @04:03PM (5 children)

        by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @04:03PM (#1149141) Journal

        You mean White Republicans, or people to stupid to use preview to check their spelling? Either way it's not a problem, just self-identify as a pink hair and you can post whatever inflammatory remarks you want.

        Nothing more to add.

        --
        Wit is intellect, dancing.
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by martyb on Friday June 25, @04:22PM (3 children)

          by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @04:22PM (#1149153) Journal
          Muphry's law strikes again! I highlighted the wrong "to". =)
          --
          Wit is intellect, dancing.
          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:48PM (#1149167)

            People have died because an engineer forgot too carry the one

            At first glance, that read as "marty's" law..

          • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 25, @06:44PM

            by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @06:44PM (#1149238) Journal

            I see what you did there.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @07:48PM (#1149285)

            Is that like Sharia Law but when the Irish force everyone to get an abortion and get gay married?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:41PM (#1149192)

          I thought that was part of the joke.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday June 25, @02:12PM (4 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Friday June 25, @02:12PM (#1149086)

    What I do is, as the stories roll along, I make a mental note of abusive posters and aggressive people who seem to confuse they personal opinion and trolling, and loudly call for troll moderation (instead of, you know, arguing and discussing in a civil manner), or less-than-obvious trolls that pass muster for moderators who, more often than not, don't drill through the post to find out what it really is.

    Then when I get mod points, I pick any old posts one of those suckers has posted recently - preferably highly-rated ones, because sometimes they do post interesting things in between aggressive rants and trolls - and downmod them until I run out of mod points. I can wait a long time, but when I get mod points, I enact revenge.

    Not that it really matters though at the end of the day though: that provides 30 seconds of karmic justice amusement, and then I go out and do real stuff in real life :)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @01:59AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @01:59AM (#1149464)

      > Then when I get mod points, I pick any old posts one of those suckers has posted recently - preferably highly-rated ones, because sometimes they do post interesting things in between aggressive rants and trolls - and downmod them until I run out of mod points.

      While I'm not quite as organized as you appear to be, I often do something similar. For awhile there, fakefuckxx was one of my common targets, what an unpleasant poster (even if he did display some competence in his field).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @10:58AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @10:58AM (#1149581)

        Any apparent competence displayed by fakefuck was probably due solely to your unfamiliarity with the topic. Any time he strayed into any area I know well enough to judge he displayed a shallow knowledge of some of the terms and an appalling misunderstanding of the deeper principles.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @06:45AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @06:45AM (#1149882)

          Worse, he will argue you to death if you are a subject matter expert and claim you don't know what you are talking about as he displays ignorance of basic concepts or terms in that subject! It really is bizarre.

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Sunday June 27, @12:47PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 27, @12:47PM (#1149935) Journal
            You know you've won though when he tells you at length how he's not listening.
  • (Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:35PM (#1149093)

     

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BK on Friday June 25, @02:36PM (8 children)

    by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @02:36PM (#1149094)

    Viewpoint Moderation aka Political Moderation is a thing.

    Moderation works well until viewpoints and politics enter in. The 'Disagree' moderation was introduced to correct this in part but really doesn't work. There are folks who mod up what they agree with and mod down who and what they disagree with.

    Just because I agree with you shouldn't make your post Insightful. Just because I know you are 'wrong' doesn't make you a troll. But that's how our moderation sometimes works.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:49PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @02:49PM (#1149103)

      The 'Disagree' moderation was introduced to correct this in part but really doesn't work.

      Because it's not "free", it still consumes a mod point, and brings no satisfaction. As such, better keep the point and maybe make an abusive AC post, let others consume their mod points.

      Come one, mod me "Disagree", you silly... (grin)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:09PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @05:09PM (#1149179)

        I modded Disagree because I agree.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:24PM (#1149387)

          A good exercise in cognitive dissonance and self-contrarianism, if I may say so. Kudos.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Friday June 25, @03:00PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @03:00PM (#1149105) Journal

      What you have discovered there is human nature and maybe also the subjectivity of opinion.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:00PM (#1149106)

      Just because I agree with you shouldn't make your post Insightful. Just because I know you are 'wrong' doesn't make you a troll. But that's how our moderation sometimes works.

      The good news is that point is recognized. Moderating agree/disagree doesn't actually change the score of a post. It just burns a mod point for the moderator.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday June 25, @03:24PM

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Friday June 25, @03:24PM (#1149121)

      I will upmod a libertarian post, a progressive post, or a Burkean conservative post even if I don't like it as long as it's a good contribution. I have opinions but I know I sometimes need to change them.

      The problem is that we're in a world where deliberate and testably outright lies pass as "politics". Replying to them risks the backfire effect. Better to bring back no report of them to trouble the light of day.

    • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Saturday June 26, @04:06AM

      by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Saturday June 26, @04:06AM (#1149497) Journal

      Viewpoint Moderation - great phrase you have coined there. Although I think perhaps Standpoint Moderation would be a better description of most of my down-mods ;)

      Also thanks fnord666!

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @07:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @07:13AM (#1149531)

      Bro, even if you write a program, u cant make it without preference.

      If i dont mod up what i like, wtf should i mod?

      AKA "ur music is good but i cant dance to it"?
      or
      "ur music sucks, but im so drunk its actually good"

      eh?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Taxi Dudinous on Friday June 25, @03:23PM (13 children)

    by Taxi Dudinous (8690) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @03:23PM (#1149120)

    For us to upmod a post without having to use one of the tags? Sometimes I want to just bump a post up without defining it as anything on the list. There are plenty of times I am just thankful for the data therein, or a well expressed thought or opinion.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:52PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @03:52PM (#1149134)

      Is there not an Informative tag for this?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @04:05PM (#1149143)

        To me, Informative implies bringing to light knowledge not otherwise known. An argument can be compelling based on a novel synthesis of things already widely known, and thus seem worthy of upward moderation, yet not Informative. Then it would be Insightful, but what if it constructs a compelling argument *and* brings to light information that's not widely known? What if it's also got a good joke in it? That's the problem.

    • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday June 25, @04:04PM (9 children)

      by RS3 (6367) on Friday June 25, @04:04PM (#1149142)

      I think that's the purpose of "Underrated", but I don't think I've ever used it.

      If there's any hierarchy, as far as I can tell, "Insighful" is probably the top, then "Informative", then "Interesting". But of course they all have the same point value. Which dovetails into thoughts about a much finer grained mod system, more hierarchy in moderators' power, and generally a more agile development of the mod system...

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday June 25, @04:10PM (8 children)

        by mhajicek (51) on Friday June 25, @04:10PM (#1149145)

        I've used "underrated" on posts that appear to have been inappropriately downmoded.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @06:48PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @06:48PM (#1149244)

          That will add to the displayed points, but does not add to karma

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:59PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25, @11:59PM (#1149406)
            Well, that's fucked up. Another example of how moderation is broken.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @07:56PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @07:56PM (#1149729)

              This is a minor issue, moderation is not "broken". It only seems that way to people who want to monopolize and weaponize it. So far it has shown to be very robust against such shit.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @10:22PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, @10:22PM (#1149767)
                Robust? Moderation is a huge incentive to create sock puppets. This is acknowledged right in the article we're posting under.

                Rather tham moderate, comment. The comments, unlike moderation, give reasons why you support or disagree with something, or add more information or a different perspective. Moderation pales in comparison. One reason not to create an account - because user moderation is broken and has been since it was first invented.

                Even NCommander recognized this.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @01:12AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @01:12AM (#1149813)

                  Yeah, downmodding is usually political chickenshit stuff, but at least it's limited to an extent. I upmod comments I agree with because I have nothing to add to the conversation, my view was already expressed. It's the downmodders that should have to explain themselves. They are so petty

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 27, @11:41AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 27, @11:41AM (#1149923) Journal

                  Moderation is a huge incentive to create sock puppets.

                  Moderation isn't a huge incentive to do anything.

        • (Score: 2) by dx3bydt3 on Friday June 25, @09:54PM

          by dx3bydt3 (82) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 25, @09:54PM (#1149356)

          I do the same, especially for posts where I disagree with the content. I don't want to imply that I think a comment is insightful/interesting, just that it has been unfairly modded down.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by VanessaE on Saturday June 26, @10:33AM

          Nah, you're totally missing the point of "Underrated": it's purely for helping posts reach (5, Flamebait), (5, Troll), and so on.

          None of this silly "inappropriately downmodded" business. 🙂

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Friday June 25, @04:48PM

      by Freeman (732) on Friday June 25, @04:48PM (#1149166) Journal

      That's what we call "interesting".

      --
      Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
(1) 2