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.
1 2 3 (4)
  • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Friday August 23 2019, @01:33PM (1 child)

    by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Friday August 23 2019, @01:33PM (#884086) Journal

    Just wondering if the site admins (who do a great job!) are seeing a general increase in troll mods across the board, rather than being associated with something more specific like an influx of new accounts, for example. I’m not asking for a statistical breakdown as I’m sure you folks are busy enough as it is.

    Also wondering what detection mechanisms exist for abuse, and whether it’s possible to have “corrective” action based on objective criteria that can be free of political bias.

    Maybe that’s very very hard to do.

    Just asking. Thanks for keeping things running.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:37PM

      1. Nope. Haven't noticed any such thing.
      2. It's like a one line query at a mysql prompt, so we haven't bothered making a UI for it.
      3. We don't have any desire to be the moderation police, which is why everyone has ten points right now. Pass out some 'Underrated's to emotionally downmodded comments and you've participated in us taking corrective action.
      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Friday August 23 2019, @02:26PM (2 children)

    by stretch611 (6199) on Friday August 23 2019, @02:26PM (#884110)

    ...unless you hit me with an acid or fire based weapon I will just regenerate and come back to kill you and your party of adventurers.

    --
    Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
    • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday August 23 2019, @02:35PM (1 child)

      by Alfred (4006) on Friday August 23 2019, @02:35PM (#884117) Journal
      This isn't that great of an adventure (e.g. thy graphics) I might not want to respawn.
      • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Friday August 23 2019, @08:01PM

        by stretch611 (6199) on Friday August 23 2019, @08:01PM (#884327)

        For us old school gamers, the graphics are on par with something called "pen-and-paper gaming"

        And the same graphics as some as the games like Zork.

        --
        Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 23 2019, @02:32PM (11 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 23 2019, @02:32PM (#884116)

    Just wondering - assuming that there's a relatively small number of people making the majority of unjustified troll mods (as is usually the case with most things), wouldn't that be relatively easy to detect? If someone mods a post troll while others mod it informative, etc. then it seems like there's a good chance it's not actually a troll post. If such things happen frequently with someone's troll mods, then they're probably abusing the troll mod, and it would seem to be relatively simple to simply ignore such mods from them in the future.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:39PM (10 children)

      I don't know about you but I don't even trust myself to always make the right call on that, which is why we don't do it.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 24 2019, @06:14PM (9 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Saturday August 24 2019, @06:14PM (#884843)

        A fair point, but perhaps it would e a good use for targetted meta-moderation? In essence, putting suspected serial false-troll-modders on trial before a jury of their peers, with their ability to continue making troll mods at stake. If you want to be extra fair, notify them of what's happening, let them review the same suspected mods, and compose a brief defense post to be presented to the meta-moderators.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 25 2019, @02:42PM (8 children)

          That's not an undoable proposition but it would inevitably lean even harder towards tyranny of the masses than regular moderation currently does. Given a small number of people moderating badly, it should be easily correctable by those who don't. If we're not doing that with moderation points already, I don't see giving us yet another method to correct it helping much.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 25 2019, @05:24PM (7 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Sunday August 25 2019, @05:24PM (#885247)

            I disagree. Regular moderation is very much a tyranny of the masses, because it's the result of the activity of the masses. A jury though is designed specifically to broadly capture the the attitudes and beliefs of the community through random sampling, while also generally holding judgement to a much higher standard such as an overwhelming majority consensus. It also generally strives to invoke a higher sense of community responsibility than normal day-to-day activities.

            As I think on it, I think I'm looking at discussion boards like this, which strive to promote intelligent and often very adversarial discussion, as experimental test-beds developing a large-scale conversational technology that would benefit humanity immensely across a wide range of endeavors . And one of the more intractable problems is a scalable way to stifle the influence of bad actors, without invoking authoritarian intervention or popularity contests. Time-limited, jury-dispensed censure seem to me to be one of the least problematic routes toward providing that.

            And it seems like such a "jury trial" would likely be easy to implement in the form of a by random invitation only article/poll consisting of samples of the suspect behavior, and a rebuttal by the "accused".

            If the accusation is automated then the "conviction rate" serves as valuable feedback on algorithm effectiveness, while the damage done by a bad algorithm is limited to wasting several minutes of a handful of juror's time.

            And if accusations originated from the community itself - well, obviously there'd need to be a way to censure false accusations, probably by the same method, but you could conceivably address a much wider and more subtle range of destructive behaviors. If 7 or 8 out of 10 randomly selected community members agree that your actions were abusive enough to deserve censure, they probably were. Especially given the number of members here who at least claim to object to most forms of censure regardless of reason.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 25 2019, @06:21PM (6 children)

              Ahh, I see what you're saying. Not majority but supermajority. Nah, I couldn't even back that. I'm not sure I'd even back unanimity of verdict, though I'd come closer. If the most unpopular folks don't get to have their say, then we have become tyrants. Should that happen, whether we're silencing them directly or through levels of indirection isn't really relevant.

              In the end you either trust the community to moderate fairly on average or you don't. If you don't then there's no point in having moderation at all. You're never going to achieve perfection but you can achieve a net positive result overall. And I'd say we have.

              You know, the reason I got talked into joining staff in the first place was because I wanted metamoderation working, so it's something I've put a lot of thought and argument into since I got here. I'm not dismissing it lightly or out of hand. I simply don't believe anything worthwhile will be achieved by significantly complicating moderation and using the exact same people you don't trust to moderate correctly to judge each other's moderations.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday August 26 2019, @04:19AM (5 children)

                by Immerman (3985) on Monday August 26 2019, @04:19AM (#885505)

                And not supermajority of the community, but supermajority of a small sample. As I see it, in any sort of quasi-democratic system you need to trust that most people will work toward the common good most of the time. If they don't, then you've pretty much failed before you even get started.

                But you also need to assume that you're going to have bad apples that game and abuse the system. And that people in large groups tend to adopt a herd mentality that easily tramples over individuals. It's naive not to, and will tend to cause things to fail rapidly once they're in use (on a forum, failure may fall anywhere between "be less appealing/useful than it would other wise be", and "so overrun with trolls and petty tyrants that everyone worth listening to jumps ship.)

                It seems to me that developing a system that harnesses statistical the general goodwill of the community to rein in the bad apples, without notably impacting the variation and falliability of the general populace, would be one of the most powerful tools available to dramatically improving the quality of forums.

                It's also one of the reasons I think it would work much better with very limited censure e.g. taking away the troll mod for a while from people who've shown that they consistently abuse it. Not silencing their ability to post - just taking away the pocketknife of the kid who keeps carving walls and furniture for a while to limit the damage they do, and hopefully dissuade them from interminably damaging the public good once they get their knife back.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 26 2019, @03:41PM (4 children)

                  And not supermajority of the community, but supermajority of a small sample.

                  Yeah, that was what I meant.

                  The really nasty problem you run into there is who gets in that small sample. It can't be random registered users because a lot of them are going to want to spend the time metamoderating even less than they want to spend the time moderating. And if any of those selected for a moderation judgment blow it off, how long do we keep retrying with new users to get a verdict before we give up?

                  If it's not random then it's either admin-picked (which I give a big "oh hell no" to) or self-selected. And the type of folks who desire to wield power over others are the very last type of people you want doing so.

                  All of which is to say, it's not quite that easy.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday August 26 2019, @04:41PM (3 children)

                    by Immerman (3985) on Monday August 26 2019, @04:41PM (#885699)

                    A fair point, there's a reason judicial jury duty is compulsory.

                    On the other hand, if "jury duty" means spending two minutes judging someone's moderation and casting a vote, it's a fairly minor imposition. Could it be made compulsory without damaging the community? Perhaps hide the rest of the site for randomly selected jury members until they cast their vote?

                    I mean, I don't know if I'm at all typical, but I rarely moderate, and am not sure if I've ever meta-moderated. But if I came to browse this morning and was instead faced with a page saying "You have been randomly selected to sit in judgement on a possible troublemaker. Please do your part to keep our community vibrant and take a few minutes to read through the accusation, evidence, and defense, and then cast your vote in order to proceed to the main site", I would happily do so.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:45AM (2 children)

                      I would too, unless I'd just woken up or was browsing on my phone. A lot of folks don't have as much invested in the site as I do though and would just log out, or blow it off until tomorrow, or close the tab and not come back until they'd been let off the hook. Whichever way folks decided individually, the butthurt would flow like wine. We get really freaking crabby about significant site functionality changes that we didn't argue the hell out of before hand. Check back to all the fun we had when we went to the new threading models if you need a refresher.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:33AM (1 child)

                        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:33AM (#885962)

                        It could easily be made very accommodating - let it be put off until later, tomorrow, or even the next day - it's not like you need an immediate verdict, just a little (maybe mildly impartial) human judgement as to whether you're dealing with legitimately undesirable behavior or just statistical noise. And if half the jurors are so disinterested in how the site is managed that they click past the jury nag until the clock runs out... I don't know. Is their engagement with the site likely to change dramatically due to bad apples being identified without their input? Heck - what stops them from just voting at random to make the popup go away? Maybe abdicating responsibility should be a legitimate option, as at least better than the alternative. I would be interested in your thoughts on the problems that would cause.

                        As for the butthurt - heck, I won't argue that one. I think a large number of the more vocal members come here for the arguments as much as anything. Still - it might be an enriching topic to argue. I suspect that an enjoyment of watching and partaking in interesting arguments is one of the few common threads that bind together our eclectic community, and promoting a more vibrant environment for that probably one of the few things we can mostly unite in - right up until we start discussing how exactly to do that of course.

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 27 2019, @10:41AM

                          Run up a journal entry asking for opinions on it if you like. If it sparks enough interest there, sub it as an Ask Soylent story and we can argue the crap out of it on the front page. Mind you, even if we come up with something most folks find workable it'll still be behind many other coding issues that've been piling up on my plate over the last year or so for various and annoying reasons.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday August 23 2019, @03:00PM (3 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday August 23 2019, @03:00PM (#884135)

    to be.

    Personally, any time I see a poster insulting the person they're replying to, calling them names, or questioning their intelligence, I tend to moderate them Flamebait.

    So maybe not everybody argues in good faith, but generally assuming they are instead of screaming at them promotes better discussion.

    I'm sure several of you will disagree with me on this

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday August 23 2019, @03:35PM (2 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Friday August 23 2019, @03:35PM (#884160) Journal

      I agree. When I see "you are a fucking moron" or "libtard" or "nazi" -- that adds nothing to a conversation and it deserves a troll/flamebait depending. Those are just insults and not even amusing ones, so a downmod is appropriate. I don't mind argument, argument is interesting. I'm not interested in fights -- fights are boring.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 23 2019, @09:41PM (1 child)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday August 23 2019, @09:41PM (#884370) Journal

        Yeah, I agree. I'll admit that I try to retain a cool head, but I do take the tone from posts I'm replying to. If the parent post is acting all self-righteous and insulting of people who disagree, but that person is objectively wrong about something critical to their point, I'm probably going call them out a bit in reply and be a bit self-righteous too.

        It's not the best argumentation strategy though. And occasionally I go overboard, in which case I will freely acknowledge and not be surprised if someone downmods me for "flamebait" or whatever. I appreciate those who do that (though it's likely only happened 2-3 times among all my posts here).

        I really don't like being nasty to people. But I also find that sometimes people win arguments simply by rhetoric, and some people here are much more likely to mod up stuff they agree with and which makes sense to them, even if it's logically or factually wrong. If there's one thing we can learn from our President, it's that bluster is sometimes critical to convincing other people -- so in addition to facts, I sometimes give in and adopt a tone responding to a post that already has a tone which isn't productive.

        I don't know. It's difficult. I then try to take a deep breath and remember it's about putting the facts out there, and not "winning" an argument.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 23 2019, @11:44PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday August 23 2019, @11:44PM (#884412) Journal

          I then try to take a deep breath and remember it's about putting the facts out there, and not "winning" an argument.

          Found your problem! Not unusual, for a Thomist!

          If you get what you are putting out there accepted as "Facts", you have already won the argument. In a Post-modernist world, reality is a construction, and reflects what Marx called "relations of production", or political power.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 23 2019, @03:24PM (4 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday August 23 2019, @03:24PM (#884153) Journal

    So I just re-read the mod guidelines just to be sure it wasn't listed. And it's a serious question.
    Both, as I understand (and may misunderstand) the terms are posts which are judged to not add to the discussion. Both, when used, are judged as attempts to provoke reactions and not represent the truth.
    The only difference I can see is a Troll either labels a person or a behavior, and Flamebait labels the post or the behavior. I always understood flamebaiting as the behavior which trolls engage in, so including troll as a separate option to me means one is labeling the person.

    I also think they are the two moderations that people would likely have disagreements of what they mean. Every other mod one could disagree that it applies to a given situation but everyone has a definable idea of what counts as Interesting, Informative, Offtopic, etc.

    I suppose flamebait is meant to draw anger or hostility where a troll might be trying to draw any type of emotional response (sympathy, whatever) that the troll doesn't really care about. But really I don't think about distinguishing them? Can someone help me out to what I'm missing in regard to distinguishing Troll from Flamebait if that isn't it?

    And maybe we need a Shirley mod. As in, not sure if you're trolling or baiting but Shirley You Can't Be Serious? (More strong than "I disagree with you" but lacking proof of intentional provocation....)

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:41PM (3 children)

      Troll: Man, I miss Beta.
      Flamebait: So, what's this whole vi vs. emacs thing about anyway?

      Which is to say, the type of butthurt they are trying to bring about; one-sided or two-sided.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GlennC on Friday August 23 2019, @03:25PM (1 child)

    by GlennC (3656) on Friday August 23 2019, @03:25PM (#884154)

    I have posted several replies that have been modded "Troll."

    I'm not particularly worried about it. I figure that those modding my posts are thin-skinned snowflakes who can't wrap their brains around the idea that other people have different opinions.

    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.

    --
    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:14PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:14PM (#884706) Journal

      In this discussion in particular, many people are getting modded as 'Troll'. It is usually because those moderating recognise that they are losing the argument and that the majority of the comments support an intelligent discussion.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 23 2019, @04:32PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday August 23 2019, @04:32PM (#884218) Journal

    I have always practiced upmodding and avoided downmodding. I did that on /. and I have done it here. I've also tried to find points of agreement with others in my posts rather than always disagreeing with people I thought were "wrong," as I did when I was fresh out of grad school; it was better, I thought, to try to build bridges rather than burn them. So being modded "troll," though rare, bothered me.

    Now I think not being modded troll is a bad thing. People, especially young people, have become far too fragile and unable to either manfully defend their own argument or to brook any kind of challenge to their coddled worldview. It's pathetic. If you're not collecting troll mods, then you are not pushing hard enough. If you're not triggering people or puncturing their balloons or calling into question everything they believe, then you are not challenging them enough.

    People are too fucking comfortable and smug in their bubbles now. Pop every goddamn last one of them, and wear every troll mod you get in the process as a badge of honor.

    Fight for your truth, goddamn it. If you don't, your "truth" is cheap and meaningless.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Friday August 23 2019, @04:58PM (1 child)

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 23 2019, @04:58PM (#884230) Journal

    Coincidentally I was reading the “most blasphemous” film ever at the BBC [bbc.com] and having watched that movie (Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”) many times, even a couple of times with one of my daughters, I have come to realize that we (the world over) have become the Judean People’s Front.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @07:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @07:01PM (#884289)

    it is because you are dealing with Bolshevik rats who are lamenting the fact that they can't have you arrested and reeducated or worse so they do the most powerful thing the can do to censor you and lie about you being a troll. they have no honor so appealing to it is a waste of time.

  • (Score: 2) by bart9h on Friday August 23 2019, @07:05PM

    by bart9h (767) on Friday August 23 2019, @07:05PM (#884294)

    What you guys thing of meta-moderation (like they had in the green site)?

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:56AM (7 children)

    by exaeta (6957) on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:56AM (#884523) Homepage Journal
    If you mod a user troll, it gives them -2 karma. If that comment is later modded up to +2, they get the karma back, and you (the modder) get -4 karma instead. Would strongly discourage moderation abuse.
    --
    The Government is a Bird
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @04:32AM (6 children)

      Would also strongly discourage any downmodding as one man's Troll is another man's Funny.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:17AM (5 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:17AM (#886568) Journal

        They are orthogonal. I've seen some trolls that were hilarious and got me to laugh out loud in meatspace, *but they were still trolls.*

        Elsewhere, in AK's farewell journal, he brought up the fact that some posters have a habit of posting some halfway decent, relevant content, and then sprinkling it full of racism/anti-semitism/what-have-you, in the hopes that it'll get modded up. Same issue there. And as someone who's supposedly so invested in civil discourse (aaaaaaaaahahahahaha!) that my posts apparently give you a permanent case of the vapors, one would *think* that would have occurred to you.

        We know why it doesn't of course; you're another smirking hypocrite, another one who likes opponents that hold back and take the high road so you can take the low road.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:19AM (4 children)

          I've seen some trolls that were hilarious and got me to laugh out loud in meatspace, *but they were still trolls.*

          Yep, the standard for a downmod though (Overrated aside as it has a specifically different use) is "does this make for interesting conversation". That's the entire point of even having a moderation system. If something doesn't detract from having an interesting discussion, it doesn't need to go down. Interesting in the "that made me think" sense, mind, not in the "that's what I think too" sense. Sometimes a well formed bit of trolling is exactly what's needed to get an issue addressed that normally wouldn't be. Mostly not but that's the lumps you have to take when you get your troll on.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 28 2019, @10:17PM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 28 2019, @10:17PM (#887007) Journal

            And I don't particularly find a couple of semi-insightful points buried in a mound of idiot, inflammatory trolling like solitary corn kernels in a huge steaming turd "interesting conversation." So downmods it is. Glad we cleared that up!

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 29 2019, @12:51AM (2 children)

              You're saying you only downmod things that detract from an on-topic conversation? You forget that I can see your mod history? You're not one of our more intellectually honest moderators, though you're not the worst by a damned sight.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:22AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:22AM (#887093) Journal

                I find this an interesting concept:

                not one of our more intellectually honest moderators,

                I would be interested in subscribing to The Mighty Buzzard newsletter of Intellectual Honesty, please.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:58PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:58PM (#887274) Journal

                I downmod things that are flat wrong too, no matter how "interesting" they might appear.

                See, you're committing the Fox News Fallacy, the idea that any two sides of an issue are equally valid and equally worth listening to. Fuck no the fuck they aren't, and I'm not going to fall for that smirking, sociopathic gambit. I know what's behind it:"Hurr hurr, they're so fucking goodie-two-shoes rule-bound, let's flood them with utter shit and accuse them of being hypocrites if they don't engage with perfect civility!"

                No. Fuck you, and fuck everyone who tries that, and fuck you a second time for thinking I and others can't see exactly what you're doing.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Coward, Anonymous on Saturday August 24 2019, @04:39AM (4 children)

    by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Saturday August 24 2019, @04:39AM (#884572) Journal

    Since down-mods are more abused than up-mods, allow fewer down-mods. A down-mod should cost 5 or 10 moderation points.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:49AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:49AM (#884652)

      How can I down mod this Coward, Anonymous, since he refused to be an AC? Quite the conundrum. Moar downmods, I say! Downmods for everyone! Twice a day! On the backside! With crackers! Double impact moderations!

      But then, I am just insane. And a dev. Pay no attention.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:17PM (2 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:17PM (#884707) Journal
        No, no you are not a dev. In fact your style of speech makes it clear to many who you really are.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:58PM (1 child)

          I figured he meant /dev/dsp myself. I mean he does make a lot of noise.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 25 2019, @06:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 25 2019, @06:57PM (#885302)

            So transparent is the lack of transparency of the Anonymous Coward? I really do hate it when I post
            AC, and people mistake me for aristarchus! Ball in your court, janrinok!

  • (Score: 2) by rigrig on Sunday August 25 2019, @06:16AM (5 children)

    by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Sunday August 25 2019, @06:16AM (#885081) Homepage

    I for one feel that in a world with ideal mods, "Disagree" should not be an option: modding should improve the quality of comments I see, not the content.
    Insightful, Interesting, Informative, Funny, Touché: you might want to read these.
    Offtopic, Redundant, Flamebait, Troll, Spam: don't waste your employers valuable time reading this
    Underrated, Overrated: a bit too meta for my taste (ideally you should be able to vote "uninteresting" if a you think comment should not be "interesting")
    Disagree: how does the fact that someone disagrees with a comment mean that *I* would be less interested in reading it?
    (But for now it's a nice option to have, as I can adjust my settings to ignore "Disagree" mods)

    If any coder is bored, maybe we could have *personal* meta-moderation?
    As in:
    * I get to review (as many as I like) moderations (without seeing which user did the moderation)
    * For every moderation I can vote "Useless"/"Meh"/"Useful"
    * If I meta-moderate [a lot] of one person's moderations "Useless", their moderations are all scored as zero for me.

    --
    No one remembers the singer.
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 25 2019, @02:47PM (1 child)

      Disagree was added to give people who think moderation should be used as a like/dislike button an alternative to going full on censor. And to show disdain for those who use it thus. It wasn't ever intended to be useful directly.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @10:30AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Monday August 26 2019, @10:30AM (#885588) Homepage
      Why do you complain about someone else's disagree mod changing what you see, when the disagree mod, *by design*, does not change what you see?

      It looks like you've made a comment based on an incomplete understanding of the subject you're discussing. How should I, or others, moderate you for this mistake of yours?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by rigrig on Monday August 26 2019, @12:54PM (1 child)

        by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Monday August 26 2019, @12:54PM (#885614) Homepage

        The FAQ [soylentnews.org] states that

        In general, bad words will reduce a comment's score by a single point (a 'down mod'), good words increase a comment's score by a single point (an 'up mod')

        So I assumed "Disagree" would lower the score, thus making me less likely to see it. Apparently it doesn't carry a score? Thanks for pointing that out.

        How should I, or others, moderate you for this mistake of yours?

        Probably not, but reply with a correction instead (which hopefully gets modded Informative for corrections of less-obvious mistakes)

        --
        No one remembers the singer.
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:19AM

          by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:19AM (#885869) Homepage
          Some day it's the wasted mod, but perhaps it's the strongest mod of all because of that. Spittle-flinging downmods are perhaps just full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. At least when comments are modded to "invisibility", their posters are still identifiable, so you can open the view of that post if you suspect someone who's normally posting sense might have unfairly downmodded.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:03PM (6 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:03PM (#886457) Journal

    I read just a little bit of the above on the Disagree mod, and am not gboing to wade through the full 4 pages. (Bad Lawn!)

    But I assume an alternative has been considered - just have Up and Down mods (and no neutral) and don't care about why? I'm sure it must have been.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:58PM (5 children)

      Our mods aren't there so you can support your friends and smite your enemies. They're there to promote interesting discussion. See Reddit if you need an example of the utter failure of that method.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:23AM (4 children)

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:23AM (#886520) Journal

        And why should what one finds interesting discussion, or not, need a justification at all? But I will not belabor the point, I asked, you answered. Thank you.

        --
        This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:51AM (3 children)

          It doesn't need justification. That some folks are not in fact using the mods to that end is what we're discussing. Good or bad aren't the same as interesting, thus the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times".

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday August 28 2019, @09:30AM (2 children)

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday August 28 2019, @09:30AM (#886713) Journal

            A little confused by what you're saying, but I don't want to go too deep here or come across as terribly critical. When I was saying about not needing justification, I was meaning the modder shouldn't need to justify their mods with a categorization of why. But if the modder doesn't need to justify the mod then there shouldn't be any need for the classification or to worry about why people downmod.

            I think you're saying that the reasoning behind classifying doesn't need justification. If so, so be it, and I guess it is not my table.

            But you've explained the why you (and I presume staff) feels it is necessary, and that's fine.

            --
            This sig for rent.
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:30PM (1 child)

              That's what I meant about it not needing to justify their mods as well. I'm not planning on taking anyone's birthday away for moderating counter to the guidelines aside from the Spam mod. Doesn't mean it's not worth discussing how to we're supposed to be moderating and how we're not once in a while though.

              It's your table as much as it is anyone here's. If you think one of us staff types could use a good arguing with, have right at it.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:28AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:28AM (#887095) Journal

    Number Two on the Hall of Fame! Number Two in more ways than one! Next up: "LOL with the Flamebait mod!" Stay tuned to your SoylentNews source!

  • (Score: 1) by hacker on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:10AM

    by hacker (8570) on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:10AM (#897014)

    I have hacked about 90 gigs of confidential documents and this is about all of America's secret information. I'm looking for a customer to sell this information to please contact me

1 2 3 (4)