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: 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.