Anonymous Coward writes:
I was going to post this to a particular story, but thought this might generate more attention and discussion as a general submission.
Seriously, what is going on with all these troll mods? Just because you disagree with someone, thus earning a "disagree" mod, does not mean that person is a "troll." To steal a definition from Urban Dictionary:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Just because you disagree with someone, does not mean they are trying to do the above. Be faster on the "disagree" and slower on the "troll." Under such abuse, it is hard to have a good discussion and, in itself, is trollish behavior by "generally disrupt[ing] normal on-topic discussion." Other than people disciplining themselves, a concerted effort to police such abuses, or making moderation logs public on the bottom of a comment where the score is shown now, I'm unsure of what to do about. As it stands, it is getting increasingly ridiculous to read what discussion is here on any topic remotely controversial, and is expanding outside of even those. It is starting to drive me away from the site, and I'm somewhat confident it is doing the same for others. I'd be interested to see what others think about the depth of the problem, if they even believe it even exists at all, and what solutions you all have for it.
[Ed note. This story is published exactly as received. First off, it bears repeating that complaining about moderations in the comments often leads (rightly) to an off-topic moderation. That is a contributing factor to my decision to run this story. Secondly, moderation is something that I on occasion have found I've fat-fingered and given a different moderation than expected. Thirdly, in the grand scheme of things, a comment's moderation is — relatively speaking — small potatoes. It is NOT a measure of your IQ or value as a human being. or standing in the community. Just accept that stuff happens and that as likely as not, someone will be along to moderate it the other way. Which is a good opportunity to say: PLEASE USE YOUR MOD POINTS! Lastly, if you think a comment was moderated in error, then send the CID (Comment ID) link e.g. "(#876543)" in an email to admin (at) soylentnews (dot) org. Keep in mind however that we are all volunteers here and there most likely will be a delay between when you send out an email and when we can get around to it. --martyb]
[Updated: 20190823_111312 UTC See comment from JR who far more precisely and eloquently expressed the idea I was attempting to. I concur with his assessment. If I want people to upmod a comment of mine that I believe was unfairly downmodded, then I need to be willing to upmod other's mis-modded comments. For perspective, so far this month, anywhere from ~150-~350 mod points were used in any given day. It bears repeating: use your mod points!]
If you ban anonymous posting or moderating, only the shameless will post or moderate.
No one has suggested that ACs cannot or should not post. Secondly, ACs cannot moderate - you have to be logged in to get mod points.
Of course you can post as AC also when logged in.
The point was if you publicize who has moderated, it is the same as banning anonymous posting: Only those with nothing to lose by exposing themselves will then moderate.
Two things. First, posting is different from moderating. Commenting only affects your own speech, and attaching your name or not changes its visibility. Moderation affects other people's speech and its visibility.
But if that is truly how you see it, then give moderators a choice to do it publicly or anonymously. If they do it anonymously, then, like AC posting, it carries less weight. If they do it publicly, then, like attaching your name to a post, it gives it a boost. Of course, people will claim, that will lead to abuse, but then everyone will be aware of what is going in those cases and abuse will be easier to catch because of said public naming, rather than living with suspicion or waiting for the private decision of one of these [soylentnews.org] (at least I think that is who gets the email) that may or may not garner a response after a decision is arbitrarily made in private by whomever gets there first. And besides, the anonymous system itself invites abuse.
You have a point. But it would make things more complex yet, like Copernicus's universe evolved until it broke.
Actually, BarbHudson was requesting exactly this - that ACs should not be speakers, in the conversation - quite recently.
She also (intentionally?) misconstrued the social impacts of anonymity, though, and to my displeasure I now count her among the probable detrimentals, alongside khallow and so on. But I guess it makes sense that she would put so much weight in the social currency her ID carries, and that she'd be unable or unwilling to consider that when she posts just to inflate her social currency, she isn't contributing positively to the group. Edifying but a little sad, like finding out why your pet was sick, because now it's dead.