Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Meta
posted by martyb on Friday March 06 2020, @01:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the alliteration++ dept.

I have a couple things to bring to the attention of the community concerning site funding and comment moderations. As always, if you are not interested in these matters, feel free to skip past this one; another story will be along shortly. Otherwise read beyond the fold for an update.

Finances:

A recent comment to a journal article about SoylentNews now having a privacy policy prompted me to pursue something that had been nagging at me for a long while.

In short, I have learned it costs more to run this site than I had estimated. We have actually been operating at a loss for the past couple years. I have, therefore, provided a revised fundraising goal of $3500.00 for the first half of this calendar year in the "Site News" slashbox (that appears on the right-hand-side of the main page).

I have been advised our current funds on hand can support the site for just six months.

For those who have been around for a while, it will come as no surprise to learn that I try to keep a handle on subscription income for this site. Further, I have been maintaining what we affectionately refer to here as the "Beg-O-Meter' that appears in the "Site News" slashbox. It provides a running tally of our financial goal for the period and how far along we are towards attaining that goal. Lastly, I have posted stories in the past apprising the community as to our progress towards those goals.

We are an entirely volunteer organization (no staff member has ever been paid anything for their work on SoylentNews). All funding for the site comes entirely from the community (we have never run advertisements and are strongly resistant to any suggestion to do so). The vast majority of our funding comes from subscriptions.

My prior estimates of $4000.00 per year were based on the only information I had available at that time. Our monthly web hosting costs ($260/month), the fact that we needed to file and pay taxes, and that we paid an accountant to prepare them. Twelve months at $260/month works out to $2160 per year. I reasoned a goal of $3000 for the year would give us about $840 for those other expenses... that should do it, right?

Apparently not.

Thanks to the above-referenced comment, I reached out to a member of our board of directors and inquired as to our financial status. In very short order I received a pile of PDF files. A separate file for each fiscal year's Profit and Loss Statement and a separate file for each year's Balance Sheet. It took a surprising amount of effort, but thanks to the concerted effort of a few staff members, these have been uploaded to our Wiki and can now be accessed through the SoylentNews Finance page.

A couple things bear explanation. You may notice that there are expenses associated with subscriptions. The amount of a subscription made to SoylentNews is a gross amount. From that, Stripe or PayPal charge a processing fee for each subscription. These fees do add up and amount to the aforementioned expense.

Also, why is a Delaware company paying Massachusetts state taxes? I reached out for an answer from a board member, and here is his reply:

We pay Massachusetts income tax (since we are not profitable, we pay the minimum amount of $456 each year, but if we ever become profitable, we will have to pay more) because we are physically located in MA (through me). A physical address was required to open our checking account with BoA[*], and for various other things. For example, we need a physical address to sign the engagement letter with our accountant every year. Note that we are not required to pay Delaware income tax because we are not physically located in DE. The tax that we pay to Delaware each year is technically a franchise tax that we pay for the privilege of being incorporated in Delaware (allowing us to be a Public Benefit Corporation, among other benefits).

[*] BoA - Bank of America.

I will keep the community appraised should I learn anything more.

Moderations:

We had had a discussion on the site a few months ago about moderation on the site. I have been pursuing a possible implementation of one of the suggestions raised there: adding a "-1 Ad Hominem" moderation. Discussion among staff has suggested we would need a counter moderation should a "-1 Ad Hominem" be perceived to have been in error. That wold mean the addition of a "+1 Not Ad Hominem" moderation, too. (In proper geek fashion, they nicely abbreviate to: "-1 AH" and "+1 NAH"!) There is more to its implementation than just adding these options to the moderation table; coding changes would also be needed. This, in turn, would require the modifications be submitted through GitHub as a pull request, then testing, and finally a rollout to the community. It is important to note that this would be on a trial basis! If it proves to NOT be workable, we need to be able to roll that back. This is easier said than done! The previous moderations will need to remain in the system (what's done is done) but future moderations must be able to be blocked... and the code is not designed for this at all.

It bears mentioning that our goal is to provide a forum for the community to comment on stories and to moderate those comments. We strive to be as hands-off about these matters as we reasonably can.

In short, this is mostly an announcement that AH moderations have not been forgotten, design work is in progress, and that when time and developer availability permits, we hope to be rolling this out for a test run. I would not expect anything to happen in the next month, but wanted to provide as much advance notice as to the intention as possible so as to encourage any feedback, discussion, etc. that could help inform our implementation.

<Note class="TMB">

s/next month/next few months/

Contractor woes (just because I technically can do everything doesn't mean it's always the wisest idea) wound up pushing move-in date on the church I've been remodeling back a couple months (end of April is what we're currently shooting for as a best case scenario) and I don't want anything hitting production servers that hasn't had at least two weeks worth of testing on our dev server after me calling it done, because I'm quite often wrong about that. The end of May is the soonest anything is likely to hit production servers, with some time in June being far more likely.

</Note>


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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @01:33PM (63 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @01:33PM (#967388)

    It's surprising that it's hard, it really seems like something that should be a data change only.

    But, is it really that much better than -1 Troll or Flamebait? And is a specific opposite really necessary? Is there -1 Boring to go with +1 Interesting? :)

    Although the idea of moderation where every -1 is a specific fallacy would be amusing. -1 No True Scotsman (corresponding +1 True Scotsman)

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2020, @01:39PM (39 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @01:39PM (#967392) Journal

    I'm gonna go as far as to say it's fucking stupid idea.

    There's legitimate reasons to call a fucking idiot a fucking idiot when they're being a fucking idiot.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @02:06PM (29 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @02:06PM (#967399)

      well you would know.

      testing testing "-1 Ad Hominem"

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2020, @02:17PM (28 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @02:17PM (#967409) Journal

        The fact that you think describing a scenario where it's warranted and calling an idea stupid is an ad hominem is precisely why it's a bad idea as a mod.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Friday March 06 2020, @02:33PM (27 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @02:33PM (#967416) Journal

          a fucking idiot

          refers to a person.

          a fucking idiotic idea

          would refer to an idea. You were attacking the person, therefore it is an ad hominem attack.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @02:48PM (18 children)

            "being a fucking idiot" is a verb clause though, so it's really attacking the action and not ad hom.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @03:57PM (14 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @03:57PM (#967468)

              The "-1 Ad Hominem" mod is a democrat thing. Please don't do it. They are only looking for a way to mete out greater punishment, like in that experiment where they press a button, believing they are electroshocking their antagonist. They use moderation as a weapon. Other than that the system works great.

              I still wish you would make the down modders write a lengthy essay on why they are down modding, we need a defense mechanism.

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @04:26PM (13 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @04:26PM (#967489)

                This is a stupid comment by a stupid person. This FACT is evident from the use of "democrat" with derogatory intent. It is also evident in that the Anonymous Coward cannot be bothered to actually remember the name of the Milgram Experiment. Further, the AC is a paranoid nutcase, as it believes that when others notice his partisan idiocy, and down mod its comment accordingly, he takes that as assualt, and says modders are "weaponizing". Moron. Idiot. Would not read again. -Framebait - Trollop

                • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:35PM

                  It read as largely tongue-in-cheek to me, so you really just proved him right on some semi-serious ribbing by getting cranky about it.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @04:35PM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @04:35PM (#967497)

                  Welp, if you were the one who down modded that, you have just made my case. This is so far the only problem with the system

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:57PM (5 children)

                    On second glance, that may have been some some quality shitposting rather than a serious response. This is where not being AC would help to tell the difference.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday March 06 2020, @05:13PM (1 child)

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday March 06 2020, @05:13PM (#967532) Journal

                      Not very subtle for a Master Troll, are you, TMB? But I, for one, vote against any moderation based on logical fallacies, whether formal or informal, simply because so many soylentils have such a week grasp of them. Not understanding what an argumentum ad hominem is, is a case in point. If we added the strawman and "No True Scotsman", the "Texas Marksman", or ignorantio elenchi, all hell would break lose.

                      I still do not understand the umbrage taken at down mods. Usually it is not too bright right-wing nut-jobs, without much actual education, that get upset that someone has downmodded them, bruising an extremely fragile ego. But that comes from the holes in the Dunning-Kroeger effect, where they are vaguely aware that they might be a full-of-excrement racist idiot. Of course, this means the more they deny it, the more true it is. They should take down-mods as therapy, or a lesson to be learned, or possibly a badge of honor.

                      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:15AM

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:15AM (#967727) Homepage Journal

                        Dude, have I ever appeared to be even as subtle as putting a half brick in a sock and swinging it rather than just throwing it? Seriously though, it's not easy to tell on a good one without having some context. That's what makes it good.

                        Yeah, I don't get it either. Getting downmodded for making people think things they didn't want to think is praise for a job well done not an insult.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:15PM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:15PM (#967533)

                      Sorry, it is because of these arbitrary down modders that I post AC. I'm not sticking my karma out for them. Knowing the identity of a poster can be helpful in some instances. This isn't one of them. And after all, moderation is done anonymously. Why don't we ID them too? Don't we have the right to face our "accusers"?

                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:02AM (1 child)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:02AM (#967723) Homepage Journal

                        I wouldn't sweat it. If EF can keep his between 45 and 50 when he half tries, anyone can.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @06:59PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @06:59PM (#967951)

                          He is a good man. The facade can't hide that.

                • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:23PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:23PM (#967535)

                  Leave it to a Democrat to assume that their own name is a derogatory insult.

                  Stop hitting yourself

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 06 2020, @06:08PM (1 child)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 06 2020, @06:08PM (#967567) Journal

                  This FACT is evident from the use of "democrat" with derogatory intent.

                  And then to imply his ideas were wrong because of it!

                  Boy, maybe we need some kind of moderation option for crap like that!

                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @07:01PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @07:01PM (#967585)

                    Boy, maybe we need some kind of moderation option for crap like that!

                    :-) On the contrary, lack of that option will do more to compel a written response, which is far better, so we don't have idiots just "pushing a button" *BZZZZT!*

                • (Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2020, @06:53PM (1 child)

                  by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @06:53PM (#967580) Journal

                  Derogatory intent is not required for an ad hominem

                  A. You're a well paid, well respected lawyer
                  B. You're arguing that poor people are suffering
                  C. You couldn't possibly know that because of A

                  That's an ad hominem argument. It's fallacious because it circumvents the content of the argument to focus on the person saying it. It doesn't really matter if it's derogatory or not.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:09PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:09PM (#967871)

                    A. You are fucking stupid idiot
                    B. You're arguing that poor people are suffering
                    C. You couldn't possibly know that because of A

            • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Friday March 06 2020, @03:57PM (2 children)

              by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @03:57PM (#967470)

              There really cannot be a more classic example of ad hominem than "being a fucking idiot".

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2020, @04:12PM (1 child)

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @04:12PM (#967475) Journal

                See all the other posts that explain exactly why that thought is incredibly stupid.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:17PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:17PM (#967534)

                  Not just incredibly stupid, but whoever wrote it is a fucking idiot!! Which is NOT an ad hominem.

          • (Score: 5, Touché) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2020, @02:51PM (7 children)

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @02:51PM (#967425) Journal

            And here, dear class, we have an example of a mind that is incapable of abstract reasoning. It's an interesting case, because while they can recognize words and their literal meaning, they're utterly incapable of using the sentence's structure to determine that the application was hypothetical in nature and not a literal usage.

            This kind of extremely befuddled reasoning is quite normal among those who like to cite fallacies in discussions as "I win" buttons. It doesn't matter to them, if when the fallacy is applied it deconstructs flawed reasoning(as fallacies should) or is merely possessed of an entirely superficial similarity. This kind of mind isn't capable of applying concepts meaningfully.

            The distinction, in this explicit fallacy, the ad hominem, between "This person is of dubious moral character therefor what they say should be disregarded" an invalid piece of reasoning, and "This person puts forth morally repugnant ideas, thus is of low moral character" a potentially valid deduction would be utterly lost on them. Don't even try to explain it.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 06 2020, @08:34PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @08:34PM (#967636) Journal
              It's the "some fallacies are superficial, so stop picking on me, 'k?" fallacy.
              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2020, @09:51PM (3 children)

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @09:51PM (#967666) Journal

                People can pick on me all they like, I just don't like bad ideas that enable stupid reasoning.

                • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @10:30PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @10:30PM (#967680)

                  but you keep coming back to SN ;)?

                  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:36AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:36AM (#967734)

                    We are the Soylent Amigos! Wherever there is stupidity and bad reasoning, we'll be there! Wherever there is ignorance and bias, we'll be there! Wherever there is injustice and unsocial behavior, we'll be there!

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 07 2020, @02:30AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 07 2020, @02:30AM (#967767) Journal

                  I just don't like bad ideas that enable stupid reasoning.

                  I don't either. That's why I point out these bald fallacies where they occur. I'm not going to bother to pretend that someone's fallacy-ridden argument is rational or sound.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday March 06 2020, @09:20PM (1 child)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday March 06 2020, @09:20PM (#967658) Journal

              Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. We have been over the ad hominem thing before. Behold!
              https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=16556&cid=428738#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:25AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:25AM (#968067)

                But see, in your case...

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @02:45PM (2 children)

      I tend to agree. I very much prefer the "comment rather than moderate" approach to things. The former creates discussion while the other inhibits it.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 06 2020, @07:10PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday March 06 2020, @07:10PM (#967588) Journal

        I was about to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. My take on moderation is conservative in the sense that I only do it rarely if somebody has really succinctly stated something, contributed useful additional information or insight, or has come out with a bon mot that could brighten everyone's day.

        Agreement or disagreement is better expressed through a reply, because conversation is what this site is all about. It's the secret sauce.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 07 2020, @03:41AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 07 2020, @03:41AM (#967794) Journal

          So, we need a sauce chef? As opposed to a sous chef? But, where can we get a chef with secret clearance to keep the secret sauce secret?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 06 2020, @03:27PM (5 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 06 2020, @03:27PM (#967448) Journal

      There's legitimate reasons to call a fucking idiot a fucking idiot when they're being a fucking idiot.

      That's not even technically an ad hominem! That's just namecalling.

      'Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot' would be an ad hominem.

      But people are mostly going to use it for the first example, aka incorrectly, when flamebait or troll would actually be more accurate.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:39PM (4 children)

        You forgot Informative. They may not think they're an idiot while actually being one and in need of that information.

        Go ahead, I know you want to. I'll probably even laugh.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 06 2020, @07:14PM (2 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday March 06 2020, @07:14PM (#967590) Journal

          We're all selectively idiots. I've seen everybody on here say dumb things sometimes, on certain topics. We each know what we know, and paper over the rest with supposition and personal perspective/prejudice. If moderation is doing its job it places those in proper relief, right?

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @11:59PM (1 child)

            I serve up a slow pitch like that and you take it seriously? Come on, man!

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @01:42AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @01:42AM (#967754)

              It is the Catch-22 of being an idiot. When you're serious people think you're trolling, when you're trolling people take you seriously. Time to see a neuropathologist.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 06 2020, @09:23PM

          You forgot Informative. They may not think they're an idiot while actually being one and in need of that information.

          Go ahead, I know you want to. I'll probably even laugh.

          As someone I used to know liked to say, "People get mad when you call them an asshole, because they don't realize you're trying to get them to stop being stupid. They think you're just being mean."

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Friday March 06 2020, @02:47PM (15 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @02:47PM (#967422) Journal

    It's surprising that it's hard, it really seems like something that should be a data change only.

    It was explained in TFS. Once a moderation has been used it cannot be deleted from the database, otherwise any moderations that had been given would no longer make sense - they would be moderations without a reason. Therefore the logic of the program has to be able to cope with a moderation value in the moderation table which can no longer be considered valid, but must remain otherwise the database will have errors in it. That changes the logic in the code that handles moderations.

    If we change the code, we have to test it. Therefore there will be a period of testing, including testing on dev.soylentnews.org where we will try to break it, martyb will QA the life out of it, and eventually assuming that it passes it will be released.

    But I suspect that you already know that, or you don't write software....

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @02:54PM

      Yup. Remove an entry from the modreasons table that's been used and the script would error out any time you tried to load a page it'd been used on. Leave it in and add a disabled flag to the table so it doesn't show up in the dropdown boxes and you still have to programmatically check that the reason isn't disabled before accepting moderation requests to keep people from crafting POST requests by hand to use it even after it's disabled.

      tl;dr Not just a data change.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @03:09PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @03:09PM (#967434)

      (+6, Extra large penis) I feel this is a necessary change for me to continue on this site.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:44PM (2 children)

        Nah, we'd run into all kinds of issues like how do you categorize trans folks or those who otherwise buy aftermarket penises in their myriad varieties. It'd be entirely too much bother.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:00AM (1 child)

          by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday March 07 2020, @12:00AM (#967721) Journal

          no, parent poster is asking for a +6 larger penis. Not sure php or perl or any database changes can help with that, though.

          --
          "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @03:51AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @03:51AM (#967797)

        You do realize that +6 is not "extra large"? It is only about average, or maybe just a bit below average, depending on your source. I suspect that if you ever see an "extra large" you will suffer inadequacy complexes for the rest of your life.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @05:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2020, @05:59AM (#967819)

          Complexes? You mean sore throat.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday March 06 2020, @03:24PM (7 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday March 06 2020, @03:24PM (#967444) Journal

      Wouldn't it suffice to remove the value from the dropdown menu? That way the moderation would stay valid but it would be impossible to actually submit it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday March 06 2020, @03:42PM (2 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @03:42PM (#967456) Journal

        If you subsequently roll-back the code having decided that ad-hom moderations are not a good idea, how would the code know what moderation names should be applied to historic moderations? How would it know that the AdHom moderation should not be allowed for future moderations? We roll back the code but NOT the contents of the database - otherwise you lose everything that has been discussed during the period that the moderation was acceptable. Story and comment IDs become invalid, and a whole host of other problems ensue. Therefore, we keep the database as it is and the moderation name MUST remain in the moderation table, even though it is no longer available for use.

        One way to do that is to flag that moderation name as invalid, but that requires changes to the logic so that any attempt to use it as explained by TMB [soylentnews.org] cannot be actioned. The change is simple in concept, but requires a non-trivial effort to implement.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday March 06 2020, @03:51PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @03:51PM (#967464) Journal
          You must also remember that the code is stored on GitHub. Anyone is free to inspect the code and it is impossible to hide how the code hangs together. People WILL try to abuse the system - they already have and they probably always will.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:49PM

          Oh it's relatively trivial but not purely cosmetic. The latter I'm okay with hot patching into the live code, the former I want run past martyb's perfectly good code breaking eyes for a bit.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:47PM (3 children)

        Nope. If it remained in the db, the code would see it as a valid moderation and allow it to be applied if you were to hand roll a POST request using the removed moderation. Also, the API doesn't know squat about a dropdown box, just what reasons are in the modreasons table.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Friday March 06 2020, @09:46PM (2 children)

          by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2020, @09:46PM (#967663)

          May I suggest quick and dirty solution if you are just trying things out? Make the new mods with ids 100+ or something. The rollback code change would be "WHERE id 100". Easier than adding a flag.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Friday March 06 2020, @03:37PM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2020, @03:37PM (#967453) Journal

    -1 Flamebait is the obvious moderation to use in place of -1 Ad Hoominem.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday March 07 2020, @11:50AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday March 07 2020, @11:50AM (#967869) Journal

      Obvious? -1 Troll seems more appropriate for an Ad Hominem. Flamebait is for negative propaganda, like insinuating that maybe there was something to Pizzagate. Or that there should be +1 Democrat and -1 Republican mods. Or that LibreOffice can't handle every MS Office file, as if MS Office itself can.

      Anyway, Ad Hominem just doesn't seem a category important enough to deserve a place of its very own in the moderation system. Else, why not have -1 Strawman, -1 Gaslighting, -1 Politically Incorrect, +1 Nerdy, -1 Tool, etc.

      -1 Fallacious covers Ad Hominen and all the rest of the fallacies.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @04:49PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @04:49PM (#967509)

    How about a write-in mod? +1 and -1 versions.

    Log them, it might be fun/funny to look through the list.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 06 2020, @04:52PM (3 children)

      Hrm... Not terribly difficult and could be hilarious. If I had the time, it would so be our 4/1 goof this year. Not sure how good an idea it'd be for day to day use though.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @05:01PM (#967522)

        OK, for 4/1/2021 then. I can wait, unless this damn virusoverreaction shuts us all down.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Friday March 06 2020, @05:03PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2020, @05:03PM (#967526) Journal

        One dropdown with +1, 0, -1, another with the mod reason.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @06:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @06:10PM (#967568)

        Geekizoid was a parody-ish site run by Slashdot trolls. I don't remember all of the moderation choices. I believe four of the upmod options were Worthwhile, Intriguing, Troll, and Totally Gay. And I remember that two of the downmod options were Inciteful and Not Gay Enough. I distinctly remember getting a 24 hour IP ban once for picking up six Not Gay Enough mods.

        I also remember getting five first posts on Slashdot on one April Fools Day. All of them were modded up to +5 or close to it. It did wonders for the karma of my troll account.

        I miss when the trolls were actually clever and contributed to the culture of Slashdot rather than just APK spam and political crap. The cows guy and the app appers guy were pretty good but the trolling mostly turned to shit a long time ago. Even some of the more obnoxious crapflooding actually involved some effort like the numerous fiction stories involving Slashdot editors having relations with each other. I think that era ended when the GNAA spam took over and the crapflooding was more about quantity than being clever.

        Anyway, you could definitely have some fun with the moderation on April Fools Day. I wouldn't mind seeing first posts and other dumb but mostly harmless trolling get modded up that day. And troll should definitely be an upmod.