Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Meta
posted by martyb on Friday August 23 2019, @06:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the tragedy-of-the-commons dept.

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!]


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.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @11:46AM (30 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Friday August 23 2019, @11:46AM (#884042)

    +1 Agreed and Informative/Insightful
    -1 Agreed but Off-topic
    -1 Agreed but Offensive
    +1 Disagreed but Informative/Insightful
    -1 Disagreed and Off-topic
    -1 Disagreed and Offensive
    +1 Funny or touche
    -1 Factually false
    -1 Redundant and overrated
    ---
    -1 Spam

    Notes:
    1. 1-to-2 positive-to-negative modding options: It's easier to be critical. Might as well work with it and encourage it's done constructively.
    2. No Underrated: If it's underrated, rate it with an appropriate mod and/or comment.
    3. No Troll and Flamebait: Same as Underrated.
    4. No +1 Informative/Insightful without expression of agreement or disagreement: If you can't produce the minimal cursory standard critique in the vain of "That's very interesting and good to know but I disagree / and I agree", then you're not being informed or inspired.

    --
    compiling...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday August 23 2019, @12:04PM (1 child)

    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 23 2019, @12:04PM (#884050)

    It's good to see some constructive thinking, but I don't think that it's always possible to agree/disagree with something: if I post "this is my experience, this happened to me", are you looking for mod-point-wielders to decide " yes, I agree that this happened to them", or something else?

    On note 3, did you mean "Same as Overrated" ?

    I could see a -1 Factually False mod having some misuse problems, much like the current Troll mod.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @07:27PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Friday August 23 2019, @07:27PM (#884310)

      if I post "this is my experience, this happened to me", are you looking for mod-point-wielders to decide " yes, I agree that this happened to them", or something else?

      The agree / disagree applies to the reader's finding flaws in the anecdote or not. The follow-up is where you'd explain "Well sure but correlation != causation since in this case you might have...".

      On note 3, did...

      Yup. Sorry.

      I could see a -1 Factually False mod...

      All mods have misuse problems. Modding Factually false forces you to account for what's wrong with it. Modding Troll doesn't. That's to say, for what it's worth, it's more empirical.

      --
      compiling...
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @01:22PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @01:22PM (#884080)

    That looks too much like the IRS Form 1080. We need to keep it simple for IQ's under 180.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @07:44PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Friday August 23 2019, @07:44PM (#884322)

      We need to keep it simple for IQ's under 180.

      The point is getting people to think through their mods. If they fail to do so but still try and think them through, it's still a win.

      --
      compiling...
  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday August 23 2019, @01:45PM (20 children)

    by theluggage (1797) on Friday August 23 2019, @01:45PM (#884094)

    If you can't produce the minimal cursory standard critique in the vain of "That's very interesting and good to know but I disagree / and I agree", then you're not being informed or inspired.

    -1 Disagree :-). My opinion:

    On a complex subject, its perfectly reasonable to keep an open mind while still recognising a valid or well-reasoned point. If these issues had simple answers they'd have been sorted out years ago and we wouldn't be debating them. Agree/Disagree, without a supporting argument, is so simplistic as to be meaningless*. To insist that you need to agree or disagree with someone's position in order to acknowledge (or make) a useful contribution to the debate is a step towards the sort of absolutism that others in this thread have been lamenting. So many of the divisive issues today seem to be rooted in false dichotomies where, if you're not "for" then you must be "against". That's in addition to situations where someone might just be providing neutral, but relevant information (e.g. linking to a relevant source) meaning that agree/disagree would be irrelevant or ambiguous (was it right to post it, or do you agree with the linked source?).

    SN doesn't need to come to a consensus on the stories it runs. Whether you agree or disagree with an article should be irrelevant, and disinteresting unless you have a comment to add. Moderation should be about the quality of a comment and downmodding should be all about possible abuse - or at least gratuitously off-topic, never disagreement. If you disagree, either post your counter-argument or up-mod someone who has already done so. Of course, human beings are always going to be less than impartial in their modding, but I don't think the system should legitimise it.

    I'd acknowledge that you've allowed combinations such as "Disagree but informative" (enjoy your karma!) but they still embody the idea that you need a yes/no position on everything.

    As for "offensive" - the idea that people have a right to suppress anything that they personally deem offensive really shouldn't be encouraged. There is a slightly scuffed line in the sand between that and a comment that deliberately/knowingly sets out to offend or harass - and SN can't just ignore laws about hate speech and harassment - but I think Troll/Flamebait come closer to having an objective definition of what isn't acceptable.

    -1: Factually false: Citation needed - either post the correction or find someone who has and mod them informative.

    Underrated - +1 Agree that this is -1 redundant!

    Missing options: "-1 Not Even Wrong" and "-1 Fills a much-needed gap in the argument" (joke - but they're probably easier to apply semi-objectively than 'disagree').

    * In one of Terry Pratchett's books, a character was told that there were two sides to every argument - her response was "Yes, but what do you do if one of 'em is wrong?" - unusually, I think the wisdom of Pratchett missed the point: What do you do when neither of them are wrong?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @08:35PM (14 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Friday August 23 2019, @08:35PM (#884339)

      On a complex subject...

      On a complex subject you wouldn't leave a mod point. You'll comment or remain silent.

      reasonable to keep an open mind while still recognising a valid or well-reasoned point

      That's nonsensical. If the argument is valid and well-reasoned and you have nothing constructive to add then you must accept it and agree. Otherwise, it's not a valid and well-reasoned point or you are not a well-reasoned individual. More over, there's nothing precluding you from agreeing or disagreeing with some point but still keeping an open mind. In fact, it's required of you if you happen to be a scientist to maintain such doubt.

      This is why I find agnostics to be so irritating as an atheist. No one knows what they don't know. Saying you're "keeping an open mind" despite knowing there's not a single valid argument to support the other opinion is like saying you're keeping an open mind about the world being flat. It's magical thinking masquerading as scientific rational. Do you check to see if there's imps hiding under the bed every morning? Can't be too sure. There's always a possibility... Drivel.

      the idea that people have a right to suppress anything that they personally deem offensive really shouldn't be encouraged

      Laws aside, it's far easier for commenters to drop by IRC and challenge an Offensive down-vote when they're not being offensive than to challenge any other mod.

      Factually false: Citation needed

      It's the duty of the person making the original comment to provide evidence to defend their claim. If someone down-votes you for lacking evidence and you can't provide them, that's a legitimate down-vote. If you had provided them then it's a bad down-vote and the staff can overturn the mod. If you provided them and someone provided a rebuttal with other evidence, that's conflicting evidence which can be weighed on by other commenters upping and downing the different comments. Either way, "Factually false" works.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:33AM (11 children)

        by exaeta (6957) on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:33AM (#884537) Homepage Journal
        I think the point of calling oneself an agnostic is that while there is no observable evidence for an interventionary god, there isn't any evidence that a deistic god doesn't exist either. Thus, acknowledging the limits of human knowledge requires accepting that atheism is based on an assumption, not reason.
        --
        The Government is a Bird
        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:19AM (9 children)

          by RamiK (1813) on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:19AM (#884636)

          There isn't evidence for or against the existence of unicorn riding leprechauns either. Yet when I ask agnostics if they believe in them, they deny it flat out without all this "there's no evidence pointing either way so I remain open minded to the existence of unicorns shooting rainbows of their asses". And you know why? Because it's superstitious to "remain doubtful" in some fantastic existence just because other people believe in them without a shred of evidence solely based on eye-witness testimonies from 2k years ago by goat herders that didn't even know the world was round. Why not remain open minded to the existence of Odin? Oh I better leave some frankincense on the front door just in case he exists... Can never be too sure...

          What a load of cowardly hooey.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @09:33AM (7 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 26 2019, @09:33AM (#885581) Homepage
            Unfortunately, I've found that argument fail occasionally. Some cowards are remarkably stuborn.
            Other side lines taken have also failed, as the more I try to get clever, precise, sneaky, or whatever, the less they understand what I'm even talking about.

            1) What could this "deity" do to interfere with our world?
            If the answer's anything but "nothing", given that there's a priori agreement it's not actually done anything to interfere with our world:
            2) How is this deity different from an entity that can do nothing to interfere with our world?
            If a difference is claimed, you then have a crack that can be opened, so we assume this deity is insistinguishable from an entity that cannot do anything to interfere with our world, and therefore *is* an entity that cannot do anything to interfere with our world, and we continue:
            3) How does the argument to suspend disbelief in your deity differ from any other argument that appeals for suspension of disbelief in any other such entity?
            If a difference is claimed, you then have another crach that can be opened, so we assume the arguments are not fundamentally different, and continue:
            4) If all such arguments are indistinguishable in structure, and you chose to suspend disbelief for one of them, shouldn't you do it for all of them?

            ... blank faces. At every step, usually. Most people are ill-equipt to think in the abstract, about entire classes of things.

            I find it deeply unsatisfying that just rolling out a space-teapot seems to be the move with greatest leverage.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday August 26 2019, @05:52PM (6 children)

              by acid andy (1683) on Monday August 26 2019, @05:52PM (#885730) Homepage Journal

              If this helps at all, I'm first and foremost a scientist and a skeptic and reject just about all claims made for observational evidence for any supernatural phenomena. But if I had to take a label on this stuff, it would be much closer to agnostic than atheist.

              3) How does the argument to suspend disbelief in your deity differ from any other argument that appeals for suspension of disbelief in any other such entity?

              You see this is where the dogmatic atheists get a little sloppy. There quite clearly are lots of differences in different entities that we can postulate the existence of. Roughly speaking, the more specific we are in our description of our hypothetical entity, the less probable it is that we are exactly correct concerning its existence. So, the existence of a unicorn is considerably more probable than the existence of a unicorn riding leprechauns, which in turn is much more probable than the existence of leprechaun-riding unicorns that shit rainbows. The existence of a space-teapot anywhere is slightly more probable than that of one orbiting the Earth (although since teapots appear a lot on Earth, it's somewhat plausible that someone could have put one into orbit).

              Consequently, the probability of the existence of a deity will vary massively depending on how that deity is defined. If I go for one of the loosest definitions I can think of: let's just say an intelligence greater than our own that exists outside of any physical universe, then you're intellectually on very dodgy ground if you want to insist that that's so improbable as to be almost impossible. We just don't have enough information either way to properly calculate the probability--but that's what agnosticism is--admitting that you can't tell one way or the other, rather than wrongly claiming that you know it's (just about) impossible.

              --
              If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @09:39PM (5 children)

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 26 2019, @09:39PM (#885818) Homepage
                My preferred label is "ignostic" or "igtheist". I don't believe any believers or agnostics can even define their concept in unambiguous enough terms that it's possible to even meaningfully discuss them. What's the probability of there being a one-dimensional square sphere? That's a meaningless question, so does not even have an answer, it has a dismissal.

                Your current sloppy definition isn't currently unambiguous enough to discuss, it bifurcates into two possibilities - one such thing that is capable of interacting with our universe, and one such thing that is incapable of interacting with our universe. The former falls into the field of being scientifically evaluable, and particle physicists and cosmologists can give a very clear answer that the probability of there being such interactions is vanishingly small, and they will be vanishingly small in effect such that they won't cause any effect significantly distinguishable from how one would expect things to behave in the absense of such interactions. The latter falls outside the domain of science, and is in no way interesting to discuss, as it matters not in any way whether the thing exists or not. So you may as well include the shitting of rainbows to that definition, it makes no difference.

                Oh, if you want as sloppy as possible, to increase your probabilities, you can even drop the intelligence clause. If you can persuade an igtheist that there's possibility of existence in the absense of that clause, then you can start to debate how much intelligence such a thing might be capable of posessing and expressing. However, that's a big if, I can warn you now that the success rate is 0%. (Yes, that's a NTS fallacy, deal with it!)
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday August 27 2019, @01:21PM (4 children)

                  by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday August 27 2019, @01:21PM (#886058) Homepage Journal

                  I don't believe any believers or agnostics can even define their concept in unambiguous enough terms that it's possible to even meaningfully discuss them.

                  Your current sloppy definition isn't currently unambiguous enough to discuss

                  As stated previously, if I add too many specifics, the probability of existence may decrease. Which is exactly the objection I have against dogmatic atheism--many of those people assert a very specific prediction as definitely true without evidence to support it.

                  it bifurcates into two possibilities - one such thing that is capable of interacting with our universe, and one such thing that is incapable of interacting with our universe. The former falls into the field of being scientifically evaluable, and particle physicists and cosmologists can give a very clear answer that the probability of there being such interactions is vanishingly small, and they will be vanishingly small in effect such that they won't cause any effect significantly distinguishable from how one would expect things to behave in the absense of such interactions.

                  I tend to agree there's currently no credible evidence available for the interaction of a deity with our universe although even then I'd argue it's tough to accurately estimate a probability. What's the probability for example, that there's some fundamentally different physics that we haven't yet discovered that would permit such interactions in the future or that the physics is different at a different region in space? One in a billion, or one in a thousand? Is one in a thousand vanishingly small in the context of this discussion?

                  The latter falls outside the domain of science, and is in no way interesting to discuss, as it matters not in any way whether the thing exists or not. So you may as well include the shitting of rainbows to that definition, it makes no difference.

                  We weren't arguing over whether or not these concepts are interesting to discuss. My objection is against atheists that insist that all non-atheists are objectively and unquestionably wrong, often to the point that they will even ridicule them. It's not just disrespectful, it's hypocritical, because they're asserting a truth that simply cannot be known. They maybe get bogged down in the very detailed specifics of faith based religions and assume that every non-atheist has beliefs that are about as improbable, when clearly that's not the case.

                  --
                  If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:08PM (3 children)

                    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:08PM (#886077) Homepage
                    > What's the probability for example, that there's some fundamentally different physics that we haven't yet discovered that would permit such interactions

                    You'd need to define "such interactions" before that could be answered. If the interactions were anything apart from all-but-indistinguishable from them not being there at all, then the probability is vanishingly low. (So if you want a non-vanishing probability, you're looking for a new force that has almost no effect.) Sean Carroll can explain why, using all the correct terminology.

                    You seem to think that scientists believe in absolute truths, in the same way that theists so often do. They don't. Truth is relative to what we can test, and immediately changes in the face of incontrovertable evidence. We know only that we have the best possible model at the moment, that's all, not that that model is an actual truth in itself. Sometimes, we have contradictory models e.g. the interpretation of quantum interactions, but we know that at the moment we have no way of testing which one is right or wrong, so we agree to let them all be considered valid science, as they all explain everything that is presently testable. Some prior interpretations have been discarded, Einstein made sure of that, as quantum theory forced him to up his game and precisely codify the implications he objected to. I think about 8 competing interpretations still coexist.
                    --
                    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:50PM (2 children)

                      by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:50PM (#886099) Homepage Journal

                      You'd need to define "such interactions" before that could be answered. If the interactions were anything apart from all-but-indistinguishable from them not being there at all, then the probability is vanishingly low.

                      I'm still not entirely convinced that we know that it's "vanishingly low", if that means something like a 1 in 10^12 chance or lower. I agree that we don't need it to exist to explain all our current scientific observations but that still doesn't mean it's practically impossible. Consider as just one example, AIs in a computer game arguing whether a human player exists that is running the game. For their entire recorded history, their world has obeyed the game's physics, yet the probability is not vanishingly low that a human player will load a mod or hack the game's RAM and change the rules in the future. That's just a variant of the simulation argument. Sure, it's vanishingly unlikely that any human will find evidence of such a thing in, say, the next ten thousand years, but that's absolutely not the same thing as the probability of the hypothesis being correct being vanishingly unlikely.

                      For a less outlandish example, what about free will? I'm not convinced it really exists but plenty of atheists believe in it. If it gives human minds a way to influence events at the quantum level, then initially at a small scale, that's a type of interaction that is "all-but-indistinguisable from [it] not being there at all", but, due to chaos theory, it can have huge effects on the world as events unfold over time. Does known physics make it vanishingly unlikely that a deity could interact with the universe in a similar way?

                      You seem to think that scientists believe in absolute truths

                      You misunderstand me. Good scientists do not. The more dogmatic strain of atheists act as if they do.

                      Truth is relative to what we can test, and immediately changes in the face of incontrovertable evidence. We know only that we have the best possible model at the moment, that's all, not that that model is an actual truth in itself.

                      Good, that's basically my position too. It's the skeptic's position. The bit I have a problem with is that you seem to be making claims of the "vanishingly low" probability of the model changing at a future date in ways that could make atheism less likely to be correct. Look at how often our theories of physics are revised. I'll grant you we seem to understand the events we currently observe at a much finer grain than ever before but we have no idea how much there is that we don't know.

                      --
                      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:03AM (1 child)

                        by RamiK (1813) on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:03AM (#887224)

                        Not that I don't enjoy some sophistry every once in a while but opening up the definition of deity is just another excuse for magical thinking. Why not argue for skepticism on the matter of the world being flat since we haven't determined the dimensions or "flat"? Why not say gravity isn't the work of infinite angels dancing on the pin of needles? This post-modern Derrida framework resolves nothing and certainly adds nothing to the practice of a moderation system.

                        Keep the philosophic banter to the comments. It doesn't deserve moderation since you can't logically critique wordplay anyhow. Maybe a "+1 Found Godo" and "-1 Waiting for Godo" should be reserved for the lot of it. Though I'm sure someone will complain it ought to be "-1 Found Godo" and "+1 Waiting for Godo".

                        --
                        compiling...
                        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:49AM

                          by acid andy (1683) on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:49AM (#887231) Homepage Journal

                          Not that I don't enjoy some sophistry every once in a while but opening up the definition of deity is just another excuse for magical thinking. Why not argue for skepticism on the matter of the world being flat since we haven't determined the dimensions or "flat"?

                          Flat-Earthers aside, I expect the (meta)physics of the Earth's geometry is a less popular topic than reasoning about deities. Some people are much more concerned with deities because they could have implications for their destiny, perhaps after death (Note: I am not attempting to argue for an afterlife here myself--just discussing what concerns are popular) if not in life. For the Earth's geometry, we seem to have a model that works well enough to satisfy most people in their daily lives. It's probably something to do with our social ape brain, often being more interested in other minds than the minutiae of one particular (apparently) inanimate object.

                          Why not say gravity isn't the work of infinite angels dancing on the pin of needles?

                          See my argument earlier about more specific definitions being vastly less probable.

                          For stuff that goes on within our universe that we can observe and measure, there's very little room left for magical thinking because we've left very few gaps. Outside of space and time, though, we have no, or almost no, information at all, to make claims about the existence or non-existence of anything. Hence an agnostic saying that there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity is being more intellectually honest than a devout atheist that simply insists that deities do not exist.

                          You could ask, if a deity is somewhat like a conscious mind, then why should such a thing be more likely to exist in such a realm than anything else of lesser complexity, such as a block of cheese. First off I'm not completely convinced that a block of cheese isn't more complex than the fundamentals of a mind (not a brain). Secondly I think people instinctively get the idea that the conscious self that has subjective experience could very well be something distinct from the stuff that we study through objective physics. We experience space and time and matter and forces, but we seem to be a point of view onto them. In that way it's easy for people to suppose that a consciousness could exist outside of the universe, hence the plausibility of one out there that we could call a deity.

                          I've no idea whether that's a coherent argument, but it's damned hard for any atheist to refute it!

                          --
                          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
          • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday August 28 2019, @11:14PM

            by exaeta (6957) on Wednesday August 28 2019, @11:14PM (#887030) Homepage Journal

            I think the idea is that humans could have souls or that our conscienceness exists beyond that of matter.

            Presumably you could determine the difference if you died, but most people who have experienced death are unable to share their insights.

            --
            The Government is a Bird
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:44AM (#884650)

          Bad enought that exaeta is questioning the judicial system, now he is use the exact contrary logic to attack atheism? Fie, fie, upon you, ye heretical goat bastard! May the Flying Spagetti Monster cover you in Ragu, as punishment!

      • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:25PM (1 child)

        by theluggage (1797) on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:25PM (#884748)

        On a complex subject you wouldn't leave a mod point. You'll comment or remain silent.

        I'd agree that mod points aren't there for people who have nothing to say. I suspect that one reason that people don't use their mod points is because if its a subject they give a fig about they would rather have their $0.01 worth on the issue. However, SN still depends on people choosing to moderate rather than comment which, ideally, should be based on the quality of contribution rather than whether you agree/disagree with it.

        Lets say its a discussion about a court case and someone provides a link to one document from the plaintiff and another by the defendant. That could be a great contribution to the debate, but do you "Agree" or "Disagree" with the post?

        That's nonsensical. If the argument is valid and well-reasoned and you have nothing constructive to add then you must accept it and agree.

        Only in mathematics and a few areas of well-understood science - and SN isn't a scientific journal. The mod rules have to cope with everything from politics to whether or not you like Name of Classic SF Novel.

        This is why I find agnostics to be so irritating as an atheist.

        (-1 offtopic) I agree that "agnosticism" as a philosophical position it (a) fails to recognise than most theologies require accepting their tenets as a matter of faith, making theism essentially a binary believe-it-or-not position and (b) sets up the straw man that science claims to be complete and have an answer for everything. I don't think its a fair reason to dismiss the idea of open-mindedness or (in the case of modding) taking a deliberately neutral position.

        More over, there's nothing precluding you from agreeing or disagreeing with some point but still keeping an open mind.

        ...and if a posting contains some points you agree with and others you disagree with?

        My argument is that moderation shouldn't be an opportunity to like/unlike responses because you agree with them - it should be entirely about quality of argument or contributing useful evidence. Moderating should be like chairing a debate, and people who take it on themselves to moderate - as opposed to join in the debate - should try and suppress their own opinions and concentrate on the quality of debate. Now, that's idealistic, but having 'Agree' and 'Disagree' in the moderation categories actively encourages partisan moderation.

        Offensive down-vote when they're not being offensive than to challenge any other mod.

        Define "not being offensive". Elsewhere in this thread, someone complained about the use of "WTF" in the title. WTF is (an abbreviation for) an offensive phrase - no getting away from it - although far worse is usually present in comments. Where do you draw the line? Well, look at in in context and ask - was the poster setting out to cause offence? I.e. is it trolling?

        It's the duty of the person making the original comment to provide evidence to defend their claim. If someone down-votes you for lacking evidence and you can't provide them, that's a legitimate down-vote.

        Then the criteria should be "Unsubstantiated" and apply equally to true, but unsupported, statements. Also, SN is not a scientific journal and people don't conduct a literature review and have several colleagues proof-read their draft before submission. Then, the rules have to be one-size-fits all for everything from "0.99... < 1"* through "vi is easier to use than Emacs" to "The Doctor is a martian" (the common problem with all those statements in terms of their contribution to an argument they are unsubstantiated).

        * OK, trigger alert, before anybody goes into XKCD386 [xkcd.com] mode, that one is definitely false**!.

        ** -1 unsubstantiated :-)

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday August 24 2019, @07:19PM

          by RamiK (1813) on Saturday August 24 2019, @07:19PM (#884871)

          Lets say its a discussion about a court case and someone provides a link to one document from the plaintiff and another by the defendant. That could be a great contribution to the debate, but do you "Agree" or "Disagree" with the post?

          That's what evidence discovery for. Evidence are presented and the other party either objects or accepts.

          Only in mathematics and a few areas of well-understood science

          I'm being repetitive but that's where the comments come in. Look, the world is full of +1 Like social networking services where people meaninglessly bandwagon their tribal politics much to the satisfaction of the advertisers. For those platforms, simple and easy moderation is enough to serve their data mining purpose. Soylent doesn't exist for that. It exists for having discussion about news pieces. Hopefully, meaningful discussion. With the occasional joke. So the moderation system needs to do the opposite: To discourage mindless virtue signaling by adding a 2nd layer to the selection choices. By not satisfying people's desire to express an opinion through what we all understand to be a meaningless vote.

          taking a deliberately neutral position

          Taking a neutral position means not moderating or leaving a comment.

          ...and if a posting contains some points you agree with and others you disagree with?

          Then leave a comment. Again, optimize to encourage discourse. Not banality. Plenty of that elsewhere.

          Define "not being offensive".

          Don't have to. That's why it's a voting process. Someone mods offensive. Someone else disagrees and up votes. The definition will flesh itself out over time as it always does in society.

          Also, SN is not a scientific journal and people don't conduct a literature review...

          Again, it's about the mechanics setting the standard. It doesn't mean people will follow. It just means you optimize for it to encourage them to follow it as much as possible. It's similar to campaign political debates: There's different formats with different cons and pros, but it's generally agreed the alternative is a shouting match. Consider the kind of discussions you'd want to participate in. The kind of comments you'd want to read. Are those promoted by +1 Insightful? I personally don't.

          --
          compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 23 2019, @09:31PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday August 23 2019, @09:31PM (#884365) Journal

      -1: Factually false: Citation needed - either post the correction or find someone who has and mod them informative.

      Okay, I agree with your response. But what's next? The next moderator comes along and looks at this set of posts. If a post is factually WRONG, it is not a good contribution to discussion. If that post had been upmodded, perhaps one could claim it is "overrated," but simply upmodded a competing post doesn't necessarily flag a previous post as literally WRONG.

      I truly don't understand why we have a bunch of moderation that seems to call for subjective moderator approval or disapproval, but don't have a way to moderate that something is literally and objectively wrong.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:35PM

        by theluggage (1797) on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:35PM (#884690)

        If a post is factually WRONG, it is not a good contribution to discussion

        I'd argue that a factually incorrect post (that isn't a troll) followed by a well-argued rebuttal is an excellent contribution to the discussion. It might be a widely held misconception to which the counter-argument bears repeating. So, by all means up-mod the rebuttal so it becomes prominent - but if you down-mod the original into oblivion then you make the rebuttal look like a straw man argument.

        Again - this site is surely about the process of discussion itself - its not like Wikipedia where the outcome is supposed to be a factual reference source.

    • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:28AM (2 children)

      by exaeta (6957) on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:28AM (#884533) Homepage Journal
      Soylentnews CAN ignore laws about hate speech. It's hosted in the US. Hate speech isn't a legally reconginizable category here.
      --
      The Government is a Bird
      • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:19PM (1 child)

        by theluggage (1797) on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:19PM (#884687)

        Soylentnews CAN ignore laws about hate speech. It's hosted in the US. Hate speech isn't a legally reconginizable category here.

        Until a social media campaign scares your ISP in to deleting your account or un-registering your domain, or every other ISP blocks you.

        Or someone just sues you for it anyway under some crackpot legal argument that costs you a fortune in legal fees to debunk.

        Anyway, I'm not in the US, and if SN got blocked I'd like to know that it was by supporting someone with a good point to make, not just some troll posting random flamebait.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:48PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:48PM (#884764) Homepage Journal

          Scoundrels are the ones most in need of defending. If you fail to do so, it's an absolute guarantee that one day you will be branded a scoundrel as well for no other reason than so something can be taken from you.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:31PM (4 children)

    Speaking as one whose genuinely held views are regularly offensive to people, screw downmods for offending. That's moderation done wrong. Frankly, we could replace all moderations with Worth Reading and STFU if you didn't mind staff bitchslapping people for using downmods for things that provoke an emotional response in them instead of things that actually detract from the conversation for everyone. That's how all moderations are supposed to be used except for Disagree (which was really me making fun of people who can't control themselves).

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @07:40PM (3 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Friday August 23 2019, @07:40PM (#884321)

      screw downmods for offending

      I feel the same but it's a fact that people down-vote when they're offended so at least this way you could set your user filters to ignore Offensive downvotes altogether.

      Frankly, we could replace all moderations with Worth Reading and STFU

      I'm afraid +/-1 youtube style does little to promote good discourse. It didn't do much for Google+ either. The whole point in a verbose moderation is to force people to think rather than hit that tribal +1 whenever their personal opinion are mirrored. Or at least, identify the yea-saying for what it is when it's done.

      That's how all moderations are supposed to be used except for Disagree (which was really me making fun of people who can't control themselves).

      That's right there is the problem. If an interface isn't being used properly by most users, the problem is the interface.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:28AM (1 child)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:28AM (#884431) Homepage Journal

        Reckon anyone would get the point if I added an +-0 I'm Butthurt mod?

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:23AM

          by RamiK (1813) on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:23AM (#884637)

          Actually neutral mods for Offensive might be useful for filters and such without actually hiding the content by default / for users while still hiding the spam crap. Yeah, that could work...

          --
          compiling...
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @10:23AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 26 2019, @10:23AM (#885586) Homepage
        It is clear that many of the least useful posts, from the point of progressing the on-topic argument, are ones which are deliberately offensive in order to provoke an emotional response more than a rational one.

        Ones that hook you into replying with something equally offensive, and with a righteous anger (well, they offended you *first*, right) behind them.

        Ones that bait you into flaming.

        Oh - we have a mod for that: '-1 Flamebait'
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves