SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There has been some discussion about moderation on this site leading to some misconceptions and misstatements. This story is an attempt to set things straight. It lays out the historical underpinnings for moderation, history of its implementation on Slashdot, and its later refinement on SoylentNews.
Before that, though, I am going to take this opportunity to thank fnord666 who is out Alternate Editor-in-Chief. I could not handle the load alone and his efforts have made a huge difference! Further, please join me in thanking him as he reached a new milestone: over 6,500 stories posted to the site! Many a late night or rare free moment has been generously given to the site. Teamwork++!
History:
The code for this site is a fork of code written for Slashdot. In that site's early days, it was apparent that some comments were much more interesting and informative than others. It was just as apparent that some users would just as gleefully troll the community. Moderation was conceived as a way to sift the wheat from the chaff and help users more easily avoid the "lesser" comments and more easily find the "gems".
Further, to encourage posting "good" comments, Karma was introduced. "Good" comments earned Karma; "bad" comments lost Karma. Moderation was a mechanism by which Karma could be allocated.
Slashdot experimented with several ways to moderate comments. First, it was just the staff who could moderate. Soon, there were too many comments to keep up, so a select group of members from the community were invited to moderate comments. Again, that failed to scale up, so those who had been selected were invited to recommend still other users to moderate. And, again, there were scaling issues.
Solution: make Mod Points (modpoints) available to every registered user in good standing and who indicated in their preferences that they were willing to moderate.
Originally, mod points were handed out randomly and expired after something like 6 hours: "Use 'em or lose 'em".
For the most part, that seemed to work. But there were some perceived issues and meta-moderation was implemented and introduced — moderate the moderations. Unfortunately, it experienced many of the same issues that it was supposed to rectify with comments, just one level abstracted. Further, it was unwieldy and when all was said and done, didn't work all that well, anyway.
Early Tweaking:
Such was the state of things when SoylentNews started. Well sort of. The code base we started with was not current and the meta-moderation code was broken. So much so, that meta-moderation was ripped out of the code just so regular moderation could be made to work. With that behind us, we finally we had a working moderation system on our site. Yay!
That worked okay for a while, but we found ourselves with complaints from many users that they wanted to moderate and lacked mod points. Nice problem to have, right? This was combined with many more comments than moderations. It was thought that we needed more mod points made available to the community. So, after unsuccessfully tweaking the mod point allocation algorithm, it was decided to just not expire mod points until day's end. Every user in good standing got 5 mod points each morning (00:10 UTC) and those were available until day's end whereupon any remaining modpoints were reset and a new set of 5 of modpoints were allocated.
That helped! But jerks will be jerks.
Mod Bombs:
We started to run into problems with "mod bombs" where one user "A" would apply all 5 of their mod points to downmod one other user "B". So code was written to allow checking for such moderations. Staff could generate a report and find such activity. It was decided that:
If you used ALL of your modpoints to downmod ONE user, that was a modbomb. IOW, 5 downmods bad; 4 downmods were permitted.
Initially, anyone who "modbombed" was manually given a "timeout". The first time earned a one month suspension of moderation privileges. A second occurrence earned a six month suspension.
Later, because there were still many more comments than moderations, the number of modpoints allocated to each registered user having good Karma was increased from 5 to 10 per day. The modbomb threshold was, however, kept the same: 4 downmods was still okay, 5 (or more) downmods to the same user was "bad".
A complication arose in that there is no easy way for users to keep track of how many downmods they had made on one other user. User "A" may do 3 downmods of user "B" in the morning and 4 down mods of other (unrelated) users. In the afternoon they might perform 2 more downmods of user "B". Purely unintentional transgression. When you only have 5 mod points it was reasonable to assume that a user could mentally track how many times they downmodded a single user in one day. With 10 daily mod points available, that became less reasonable.
So, along with the allocation of 10 modpoints per day (easy) it was intended to have code written that would kick in when processing moderations: when the threshold was exceeded, the excess downmods would be automatically rejected. And that is still the intent.
The upshot of all that is that when checking for modbombs, we no longer give a "timeout" for 5 downmods against a single user in one day. We just revert the excess mods. We do take note of repeated excesses and are fully prepared to issue a "timeout" when warranted. (e.g. 8 downmods in one day, or several days in close proximity targeting the same user. This is not done unilaterally but rather in consultation with other staff for confirmation.)
Sock Bombs:
First, there some who failed to take the hint that, maybe, they should take a look at what they were posting when they received repeated downmods. We are a community, not your personal soapbox. So, they created new ("sock puppet") accounts and proceeded to upmod their own comments, aka a "sockbomb". Staff have ways to note such behavior based on the IPID and SUBNETID that is recorded with every comment and every moderation. We try to give the benefit of the doubt. But, certain patterns do become apparent and are not tolerated. Upmodding your own comment is grounds for an immediate moderation ban.
Second, just as there is a limit on how many downmods can be targeted at one user in a day, so there is a limit on upmods. The same limits apply, each user "A" is limited to 4 upmods of user "B" in a given day, just like for "modbombs". Again with the caveat of no up-mods of your own account..
Summary:
Our experience is that the current system could stand some refinement, automation of transgression detection and mitigation is in plan (but it will be a while), but for the most part, what we have works well in the vast majority of cases. In short, Wheaton's Law still applies: "don't be a dick". Following that seems to work the best for the most. (With apologies to anyone named Richard. =)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by coolgopher on Saturday June 26 2021, @01:26AM (22 children)
Trial a “-1 Ad hominem” mod for a bit?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 26 2021, @01:54AM (21 children)
The problem with that is that the people most likely to be on the receiving end of it don't actually know what an ad-hom is. Ad-hom is when you offer insults *in lieu of* an argument. As an example, I get accused of this a lot because I have a tendency to dump my peaches flambe over the heads of the deserving...but it's *with a counterargument attached.* Since I'm generous, I give insults along with arguments, rather than instead of them :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Saturday June 26 2021, @02:30AM (1 child)
I'm in favour of educating people of that. Catering for the lowest common denominator just dumbs things down. Better to help lift the bar instead. We all learn by testing boundaries, not the absence of boundaries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26 2021, @04:18AM
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday June 26 2021, @03:16AM (18 children)
No. Ad hominem is when you shoot down an argument based on irrelevant aspects of the alleged character of the person making the argument. "You're an idiot" is an insult. "You're wrong because you're an idiot" is an ad hominem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26 2021, @04:24AM (15 children)
in your case both ate true, so either works just fine. Don't blame anyone else - you built up tour reputation as a dumbass all on your own, dumbass.
It's not an ad hominem if it's true. Same as calling someone a dirty nazi isn't an ad hominem if they're a nazi and don't wash.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday June 26 2021, @06:13AM (13 children)
I don't agree with you - such comments are still attacking the person in an effort to counter their argument, which presumably the attacker has failed to do by logical debate alone. Why does someone not washing mean that their views are any less valid than somebody else's? I may not like their personal hygiene but they may still be expressing a valid point. Why should their political or religious beliefs, the colour of their skin, their personal habits, or where they live mean that they cannot hold a valid opinion on other matters?
If the attacks you are making are not linked to the subject under discussion then they are both off-topic and ad-hom in my book, and it doesn't make any difference at all how you dress it up by claiming that you also explain why someone is wrong. The latter is all that is required and the former are personal attacks. Methinks you are confusing libel (which isn't libellous if it is true, in the UK at least) with ad-hominem attacks (which have no such distinction).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 26 2021, @08:19AM (11 children)
In the opinion of nearly 3000 years of philosophers, your book is wrong, janrinok. Understandable, what with you being British, and not knowing that under British law, the greater the truth, the greater the libel. My god, man, get at least the logic, or the law correct. before you pontificate!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 26 2021, @10:41AM (10 children)
Defamation: libel and slander
Definitions of defamation
1. You should be on guard against making statements which could be defamatory. A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another person: it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally".
2. Such a statement constitutes a "libel" if it is:
3. A statement will amount to a "slander" if it is
Now there are defences to slander and libel - namely if the accusations are true. However, personal qualities using such terms as (and I am quoting from previous posts) 'shit stain', 'fucking moron.' and other similar accusations are impossible to prove in a British court and are therefore not valid defences for a person committing libel. So as I understand it, telling somebody that they are stupid and ignorant is acceptable but expletives such as those I have quoted are not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26 2021, @03:16PM (2 children)
If someone doesn't wash themselves, and is a nazi, calling the. a dirty nazi is not defamatory. It is their actions that defame them, not someone else pointing out the pre-existing truth. And yes, there was a court case where a dirty nazi sued for defamation and lost on that basis, back in the pre-internet age.
Successive courts have held that if your reputation is already shit because of your own.behaviour, someone caliing attention to that behaviour is hardly defamatory because you had no reputation to lose in the first place. Where is the damage to their already ruined reputation?
Just look at all the comics making fun of Rudy Guacamole-brain. His reputation is already so low that they would welcome him suing them for defamation - just more material for their routine. Same with all those tattle-tale books about Trump.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 26 2021, @05:09PM (1 child)
IANAL
I don't recall quoting those examples, but I will try to explain by using them. But I don't believe you would get that through a British court.
Have you any evidence that he doesn't wash himself? How do you know of his personal hygiene? Have you ever met him? I suspect not - so a claim that he is dirty is entirely unsubstantiated.
What do you offer as evidence of him being a Nazi? Have you seen his membership card? Have you seen him wearing any signs or insignia known to be used by the Nazi Party? Having right wing views, even if they are extreme, does not mean he is actually a Nazi. Do you have any supporting evidence? Again, I suspect not and again the accusation is unsubstantiated.
One may not agree with his views, he may express views that one finds extreme, but that doesn't make the use of the phrase 'dirty nazi' accurate and its use would be libellous. The accused might well have extreme right-wing views which you might find abhorrent and to state such is entirely accurate, but not to make claims that one cannot substantiate.
The use of such phrases suggests to me several things. The accuser is losing an argument and trying to garner additional support by making claims that are unsubstantiated. Additionally, the discussion is becoming heated and the accuser is using an ad-hominem attack to attempt to gain the moral high ground.
However, if you refer to the examples that I did quote which have been taken from actual comments posted on this site then I suspect you would recognise that there can be no justification for their use in any intelligent discussion. In my view, they simply inflame the discussion and damage the reputation of the accuser rather more than the accused.
Of course, the law may be different in other countries, but I suspect that it is at least similar with regards to the degree of accuracy required to make potentially defamatory claims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26 2021, @10:48PM
And a guy who shows up in court wearing a swastika t shirt and smelling of body odor such that everyone can smell it can't be defamed by being called a dirty nazi.
And dirty nazis do exist. We had one show up a couple of years ago, hiding and then showing his swastika t shirt under his jacket in an attempt to disrupt a social event open to the general public. Could have definitely benefited from a run through the car wash.
Thrown out, and told if he came back - ever - the cops would be called. Dirty nazi is an accurate description, and calling him that does no harm to his reputation.
Most common law jurisdictions take the more practical position that truth is a perfect defence, so even if it harmed their reputation, too bad, so sad, even if there was harm, still not a foul.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 26 2021, @08:40PM (6 children)
Under US law, not under UK.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199539536.001.0001/acref-9780199539536-e-963 [oxfordreference.com]
Of course, like most things English, it libel laws in Britain have an interesting history. https://archive.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/A_quick_guide_to_libel_laws_in_England_and_Wales.pdf [senseaboutscience.org]
Well that explains why janrinok did not appear on the field of honor when I challenged him some years back.
But it is how English libel laws work that is a problem.
Truth is not a defense, it is more a matter of damages. (Those Lords of Britain!)
This is why Protesters in front of a McD's, pointing out how unhealthy their food is, were guilty of libel under English law, even though the alleged "libel" was admittedly true [wikipedia.org]. [Subsequently overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, possibly setting Brexit on its path.]
And, interestingly, this is why Johnny Depp tried to sue a tabloid in Britain, even though in his case it did not work.
As for calling someone a filthy Nazi, party registration should be enough, and as for the filth, please take a look at my journal, Anti-intellectualism, Know-Nothings, Critical Race Theory [soylentnews.org], and peruse your way down to the link to ‘Redneck Rave’ Descends Into Throat Slashing, Impalements, and Mass Arrests [thedailybeast.com], where one of the main attractions seems to be amatuer mud-wrassling, in the close-to monster truck bog. Great graphics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26 2021, @11:28PM (5 children)
So it looks like people who use nyms to post pseudo-anonymously can't sue for defamation since any attack against their nym isn't linked to their personal reputation.
That someone has disclosed their true identity to several others is irrelevant - that's private, and fails to establish a public link between their personal reputation with the public and the defamation.
So threats of suing for posts that defame a nym simply won't hold water. Because a nym's reputation, where the actual posters identity is not generally known to the public, can't defame the person hiding behind the nym.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @09:24AM (4 children)
Doxing someone, on the other hand, could do great damage to their reputation, or to them? Two rules of life: one, friendly fire isn't; two, social media, isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @01:01PM (3 children)
Anyone who believes anonymous posting is truly anonymous and that their identity cannot be traced back to them is a fool.
Is your name on your mailbox? Your mail? Do you have a license plate on your car? Are your name and picture in a Yearbook? Have you ever done an interview on TV, radio, or for the newspapers? Ever spoken at a council meeting? Got a license for your dog? Bought or sold property? Gone to court? Testified in court? Borrowed a library book? Bought anything online? Paid for anything with a credit or debit card or a cheque? Leased an apartment or house or car or hotel room? Seniors bus pass? Gotten a pay cheque or direct deposit for work? Appeared on a voters list? Cell phone contract?
Unless you can answer NO to all of those, you are not anonymous. Your true identity is all over the place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @07:24AM (2 children)
Yes, your real identity is all over the place, but on the internet, no one knows you are a dog. Or, in the case of Ethanol_fueled, that you are a district court judge, sworn to uphold the law without prejudice or bias. And it does seem a whole lot of Capitol Rioting Insurrectionists wish they had kept their usernames separate from the pictures of them storming the Capitol Building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @07:18PM (1 child)
Jeebus in cracker form Batman!
If EF was able to become a judge then the US is doomed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @09:43PM
Not saying he is, or not, but just an example where being doxxed might have an effect on a reputation. Of course, you have heard of Louis Gohmert? Used to be a judge. Roy Moore? (Baron Sasha Cohen's pedophile?) Was a judge. Kavanaugh? Maybe being outed as Ethanol_fueled on SN might not damage the reputation of an USAian judge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @07:13PM
British politeness taken to a fault.
Top notch old chap!
Any idea why British sarcasm has become a near art form? Because your cultural insistence on polieness violates human nature, so the ad-homs leak out in ever more cloaked disguises. When people are being true idiots like khallow, ignoring data and frequently using bad faith logical fallacies, then yes they should be called idiot, moron, stupid, whatever. It is actually a disservice to pretend an adult should be taken seriously when they would get schooled by a freshman level debate team.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:49AM
So how does one eat truth? Not interested in the rest of your post, of course.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 26 2021, @08:09PM (1 child)
By George, I think khallow actually learned something! Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @07:20PM
It is always temporary and comes with very strict ideological limits. Such learning goes out the window the instant you stray into "Fox news is wrong" territory. I think he is secretly Tucker Carlson and Ethanol-Fueled, which explains why EF claims San Diego origins. Sad sad thumb faced man that Cucker.