Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Meta
posted by martyb on Friday August 20 2021, @10:00AM   Printer-friendly

Milestone #1:
First off, please join me in congratulating janrinok in posting his 5,400th story! I can attest that it represents a tremendous commitment of time and effort, all freely given to the community. Thanks JR!

Milestone #2:
Secondly, we are a few days away from our team reaching 2.8 billion points towards Folding at Home. Official Team Stats and a more informative summary. As I write this, our team is currently ranked #392 in the world. Please be aware we are up against teams such as AWS, Google, Apple, Facebook, SAP, IBM, Dell, Oracle... you get the idea. Our top contributor is Runaway1956 who has been contributing about 2.5 million points per day. Barring any surprises, he is on track to reach 1 billion points by month's end. Way to go!

Moderation:
Lastly, I need to call the community's attention to some problems with moderations.

For the most part, things have been working out well! Considering the diverse viewpoints — and strong feelings about them — I'd say things are working amazingly well. There are some, however, who are prolific, vocal, strong-willed, and are trying to push their own agenda. They are likely to be unhappy with these changes. Until notified otherwise, feel free to moderate complaints about moderation as "-1 Offtopic" and just move on.

Effective Immediately:
For the benefit of the community who have been acting in good faith all along, staff will commence issuing moderation bans on accounts that have been acting unfairly. Each ban will have been discussed among staff and no unilateral action will be taken. If you receive a ban, it's because a majority of staff are in agreement that unfair moderations have been performed and needed to be dealt with.

Tools:
Staff have been developing tools and procedures for tracking moderation abuse for some time, and we are now reaching the stage where we can take action against offenders. It is necessary for these tools to provide a high degree of confidence to avoid false positives. We now have that confidence.

What's the Point?
Moderation is intended for the community to decrease the visibility of "poor" comments and to improve the visibility of "good" comments. Note the word "comments". The user who posted the comment should have no bearing on your moderation. (If it does, you are doing it wrong.) Express your disagreement either by presenting a counter argument in a new comment, or by using a "-1 Disagree" mod — that's what it's there for. As one staff member noted: "If you find almost everything another user posts objectionable, then moderation is not the solution — simply foe him, and set your preferences for foes to a suitably-low negative value."

Goal:
We have tried to provide the tools for the community to moderate itself. This has worked out well for the most part! Here's a big thank you to those who quietly go along and try to make SoylentNews a better place each day.

Sockpuppet Accounts:
These are hereby forbidden. If staff detects collusion in moderation, that is grounds for an immediate ban on moderation. Acct #1 and acct #2 both moderating acct #3 in lockstep? Ban. Acct #1 upmoding acct #2 and acct #2 upmodding acct #1 to boost karma? Ban.

The guidelines had previously stated that more than 4 downmods per day were forbidden, excess would be reversed. We have seen cases where user "A" has downmodded user "B" exactly 4 times per day for many days in a row. This demonstrates intentional action of one user against another user. Because such actions do have negative consequences on the visibility of user "B"'s posts and journals, they are effectively an act of censorship, and are strongly frowned upon; therefore staff reserves the right to take action up to an including a mod ban, at our sole discretion.

There are more instances; this list is NOT intended to be exhaustive.

Notice:
Think you can get away with something? Just because you have not seen us act so far, does not mean we have not noticed. If you persist, you're doing so at your own risk. Please do not come crying to us or the community when your schemes backfire — you have been warned. As mentioned earlier, complaints about moderation and moderation bans are off-topic and are to be moderated that way.

Summary:
Staff has access to daily reports and ad-hoc queries. We have been holding regular discussions about moderation abuse. We will continue to do so. Cases of perceived abuse are discussed and no action is taken unless there is unassailable evidence about the facts and substantial agreement about the consequences (thus avoiding unilateral action).

For future reference, here are the moderator guidelines at the time of this being written. They are undergoing review right now and will be revised to include the preceding.

This document attempts to explain the moderation system that lies underneath this implementation of Slashcode's vast comment section. It was originally written for Slashcode years ago, so the specifics of this moderation system are outlined here. Keep in mind that as this project grows, some aspects can change to better serve the community and improve the overall experience.

Contents

  1. Purpose
  2. Goals
  3. Who
  4. How
  5. Mod Bombs
  6. Sock Bombs
  7. Spam Mod
  8. Moderation Issues
  9. FAQ

Purpose

As you might have noticed, a site like this can get a lot of comments. Some are downright terrible; others are truly gems, and hundreds of comments can be hard to sift through.

The moderation system is designed to sort the gems and the crap from the steady stream of information that flows through the pipe. And wherever possible, it tries to make the readers of the site take on the responsibility.

The goal is that each reader will be able to read the the threshold they prefer. Select "-1" and you'll see trolls and possible wrongly-modded comments, try "5" and you'll see only the top-rated comments.

Goals

  1. Promote Quality, Discourage Crap.
  2. Make SoylentNews as readable as possible for as many people as possible.
  3. Do not require a huge amount of time from any single moderator.
  4. Do not allow any single moderator a 'reign of terror' -- no 'mod bombs'.

Who

We've set up a few simple rules for determining who is eligible to moderate.

  1. Logged In User If the system can't keep track, it won't work, so you gotta log in. Sorry if you're paranoid, but this system demands a certain level of accountability.
  2. Positive Contributors Slashcode tracks your "Karma" (see the FAQ). If you have non-negative Karma, this means you have posted more good comments than bad, and are eligible to moderate. This weeds out spam accounts.
  3. No Sockpuppet Accounts Accounts newer than 1 month are not eligible to moderate. This should keep sockpuppet accounts from immediately being a problem.

So the end result is a pool of eligible users that represent (hopefully) average, positive SoylentNews contributors.

How

Each day every eligible moderator is given 5 10 mod points to play with. Each comment they moderate deducts a point. When they run out of points, they are done moderating until 00:10 UTC when mod points are regenerated.

Moderation takes place by clicking the drop down list that appears next to comments, and selecting one of the adjectives like 'Flamebait' or 'Informative'. 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'). All comments are scored on an absolute scale from -1 to 5. Logged in users start at 1 (although this can vary from -1 to 2 based on their overall contribution to discussions) and anonymous users start at 0.

Moderators can participate in the same discussion as both a moderator and a poster. You are only prevented from modding your own posts.

Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to 'down mod' it. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to 'up mod' it. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find golden, shiny needles. And to keep the children who like to spam in check.

Mod Bombs

A 'mod bomb' is simply when a user, 'A', uses all 5 or more of their moderation points to 'down mod' comments posted by a single user, 'B'. Would you want someone who has a vendetta to use all a bunch of their mod points on your comments? It works both ways -- don't use all a bunch of your mod points on a single user. When this is detected, the account performing the moderation ('A') is given a 30-day 'time out' on moderating all moderations making up the mod bomb are reversed and the mod points are not returned. We would like to make the code automatically prevent a mod bomb from occurring, but this is not yet in place. The focus is on the quality of the comments on the site, not on who posts them. Remember that there are other users on the site who have mod points. If you have used all that are permitted, do not fret as someone else will likely come along later.

Sock Bombs

Much like a 'mod bomb', a 'sock bomb' is when a user, 'A', use 4 or more of their moderation points to 'up mod' comments posted by a single user, 'B'. (The name is taken from the idea of a "sockpuppet" account.) Again, our intention is to update the code to automatically prevent this from happening. We realize that this can happen unintentionally when, say, a subject-matter expert provides supporting information in comments to a story. Excess 'up mods' beyond 4 per day are subject to being reversed. A repeated pattern of user 'A' upmodding user 'B' may be subject to further action. In short, please do not try to 'game' the system.

Spam Mod

The spam moderation (spam mod) is to be used only on comments that genuinely qualify as spam. Spam is unsolicited advertisement, undesired and offtopic filth, or possibly illegal in general. Spam can come in many forms, but it differs from a troll comment in that it will have absolutely no substance, is completely undesired, is detrimental to the site, or worse.

The spam mod is special in that is removes 10 Karma points from the user that posted the comment. This mod is meant to combat spam and not to be used to punish commenters (when in doubt, don't use this mod). Our goal is to put a spammer in Karma Hell and for them to not be able to get out of it easily. As we do not want this used against non-spamers, we monitor all spam mods to make sure moderators are not abusing the spam mod. If we find a moderator that unfairly applied the spam mod, we remove the mod giving the poster back the Karma points, and the modder is banned from modding for one month. Further bans to the same modder add increasing amounts of ban time. If you inadvertently applied a spam mod, mail the admin and we will remove the spam mod without banning you. Even though we have updated the interface to physically separate the spam mod from the other mods, unintentional modding may still be an unfortunate occurrence.

Examples

If you are unsure of whether a comment is spam or not, don't use the spam mod. Here are some examples of spam:

  • Proper spam. Anything whose primary purpose is advertisement (unless somehow relevant to the discussion/article).
  • HOSTS/GNAA/etc... type posts. Recurring, useless annoyances we're all familiar with.
  • Posts so offtopic and lacking value to even be a troll that they can't be called anything else. See here, here or here for example.
  • Repeating the same thing over and over. This includes blockquoting entire comments without adding anything substantial to them.

Moderation Issues

If you see moderation abuse (mod bombing or spam mod), please mail the admin any comments (the cid link) showing the abuse. Alternatively, mention it on the main IRC channel. We will investigate and make amends if necessary. This also applies for users who display an atypical pattern of up or down mods against another user. Moderation abuse may result in the loss of ability to moderate for a time, or in some cases, permanently. (If you find almost everything another user posts objectionable, then moderation is not the solution - simply foe them, and set your preferences for foes to a suitably low negative value.

FAQ I just got moderator access, what do I do?

The fact that you are reading this document proves that you are already on the right track.

Why can't I moderate any more?

  • Do you still have any moderator points left?
  • You can't moderate your own posts.

What is a Good Comment? A Bad Comment?

  • Good Comments are insightful. You read them and are better off having read them. They add new information to a discussion. They are clear, hopefully well written, or maybe amusing. These are the gems we're looking for, and they deserve to be promoted. (Score: 2-5)
  • Average Comments might be slightly offtopic, but still might be worth reading. They might be redundant. They might be a 'Me Too' comment. They might say something painfully obvious. They don't detract from the discussion, but they don't necessarily significantly add to it. They are the comments that require the most attention from the moderators, and they also represent the bulk of the comments. (Score: 0-1)
  • Bad Comments are flamebait, incorrect, or have nothing to do with the article. Other examples: Ad Hominem, ridicule for others with different opinion (without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words), repeats of something said 15 times already (read previous comments before you post), use of unnecessary foul language, some are hard to read or just don't make any sense. Basically they detract from the article they are attached to. (Score: -1)

What is Karma?

Karma is the sum of all moderation activity done to a user. Karma is used to determine eligibility for moderator status and can affect your comments starting score. Every new user starts with a Karma of 0, and as long as your Karma isn't negative you are eligible to become a moderator.

Why Don't I get my points back after I post in a discussion I moderated?

We've decided to allow a moderator to moderate in a discussion, and then comment afterward without undoing their moderation.

How can I improve my Karma?

10 tips for improving your Karma:

Post intelligently:
Interesting, insightful, thought provoking comments are rated higher on a fairly consistent basis.
Post calmly:
Nobody likes a flame war. In fact, more times than not the flamer gets burned much more than their target. "Flamebait" is hit quickly and consistently with "-1" by moderators. As the bumper sticker says... "Don't be a dick."
If you can't be deep, be funny:
If you don't have something to contribute to the discussion, some humor is welcome. Humor is lacking in our lives and will continue to be promoted. Remember though, what rips your sides out may be completely inane to somebody else.
Post early:
If an article has over a certain number of posts on it already, yours is less likely to be moderated. This is less likely both statistically (there are more to choose from) and due to positioning (as a moderator I have to actually find your post way at the end of a long list.)
Post often:
If you only post once a month you can expect your karma to remain low. Also, lively discussion in an open forum is what makes SoylentNews really "Rock the Casbah."
Stay on topic:
Off topic posts are slapped quickly and consistently with "-1" by moderators.
Be original:
Avoid being redundant and just repeating what has already been said. (Did I really just say that?) Yes, being moderated as "redundant" is worth "-1" to your post and your karma. Especially to be avoided are the "what he said" and "me too" posts.
Read it before you post:
Does it say what you really want it to say? Check your own spelling and grammar. Occasionally, a perfectly beneficial post is passed over by moderators because it is completely irrelevant to content feature. This is also a good approach to checking yourself for what you're really saying. Can't tell you the number of times I've stopped myself from saying the opposite of what I meant by checking my own s&g.
Log in as a registered user:
I know, this sounds obvious but, "Anonymous Coward" does not have a karma rating. You can't reap the perceived benefits of your own accidental brilliance if you post anonymously. Have pride in your work and take credit for it.
Read SoylentNews regularly:
You can't possibly contribute to the discussion if you're not in the room. Come to the party and play.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @02:53PM (45 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @02:53PM (#1168844) Journal

    Good point - I will have to give that some thought.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @03:31PM (43 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @03:31PM (#1168855)

    For an example of what the GP is referencing, see this comment [soylentnews.org] by one of the mod-abusers:

    I'll Spam mod anything that's contentless slur-streaked drivel. Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point and you may get away with Flamebait, but if it's just the usual bullshit, it's spam. If you don't like it, leave. I'm doing nothing the admins are not either actively encouraging (Bytram) or blatantly signalling they'll look the other way on (FatPhil).

    Now, in what sane world is modding "an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point" as flamebait considered reasonable?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @03:44PM (29 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @03:44PM (#1168858) Journal

      It isn't - but don't go away. We are only just starting to address the moderation problem with new techniques and procedure, but it will take time.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 20 2021, @03:58PM (22 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @03:58PM (#1168864) Journal

        Whoot! See sig.

        • (Score: 5, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 20 2021, @05:23PM (21 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 20 2021, @05:23PM (#1168912) Journal

          Why don't you try quoting the entire thing instead of one sentence shorn of all its context? :)

          Oh wait, I know why, because if you did, it would completely destroy the point you think you're making. You're a dishonest sack of shit and I hope you get all your sockpuppet accounts balled up and stuffed down your wheezing geriatric old throat.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 20 2021, @05:35PM (16 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @05:35PM (#1168925) Journal

            Context? WTF is context? You certainly don't understand context. _every_fucking_thing_is_racisssss_ with you and your fellow travelers. Context? Tell us all about context.

            As for my sig - explain the context your way.

            My take on the context is, you had private talks with an administrator, and came away feeling that you were justified to moderate a whole new class of posts as spam. You posted a special journal entry to announce to the world that you have license to abuse the spam moderation. In the context of the ensuing discussion, you posted exactly what I copy/pasted into my sig.

            The ball is in your court.

            • (Score: 5, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 20 2021, @05:44PM (11 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 20 2021, @05:44PM (#1168929) Journal

              Quote the entire post. I double-dog dare you. No, I triple-dog dare you. And with not one, not two, not even three, but EIGHT cherries on top.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 20 2021, @05:55PM (10 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @05:55PM (#1168935) Journal

                I don't want anything from your kitchen. WTF does an instant pot do to cherries? I'm not even a cherry lover.

                • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 20 2021, @05:57PM (9 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 20 2021, @05:57PM (#1168938) Journal

                  Quote the entire post. I dare you with the canine contents of the entire local shelter and a whole orchard of cherries. If it makes the point you want it to you should have no fear of doing so. The fact that you won't is proof it doesn't, and proof of what a slimy little liar you are.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 20 2021, @06:18PM (8 children)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @06:18PM (#1168948) Journal

                    *yawn*

                    You should know by now that you can't bully or browbeat me into doing anything. This has gotten booooring.

                    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:42PM (6 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:42PM (#1168958)

                      It's bullshit anyway, you know. The post in question was linked above. If she had a cogent point to make she'd have given the supposedly-relevant context.

                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:16PM (5 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:16PM (#1169004)

                        Yes indeed. The post is linked, and the relevant text is quoted up thread.

                        Zumi could have explained how the surrounding context changes the plain meaning of what she typed and Runaway quoted (an exact quote I might add).

                        Zumi's continual "go on, I dare you, post the whole thing" is just her common way to obscure the fact that she was caught out, and now is unhappy that some are calling her out on her inappropriate moderation.

                        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:02AM (4 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:02AM (#1169203)

                          Zumi's continual "go on, I dare you, post the whole thing" is just her common way to obscure the fact that she was caught out, and now is unhappy that some are calling her out on her inappropriate moderation.

                          Use her proper username, you knave! And you may be able to tell, from all the upmods of Azuma Hazuki, that you are in the minority. Her downmods are justice raining down from the heavens upon your racist asses. So there is no inappropriate moderation on her part, only on the part of the Hemo-inspired butt-hurt snowflake conservative assholes, looking for a home on the internets. Sorry, this is not it.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @05:53PM (3 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @05:53PM (#1169341)

                            Oh, I see. 'Zumi is popular, therefore she is right. Got it.

                            Did your classmates call you a douche often? Like, every fucking day?

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:01PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:01PM (#1169367)

                              Actually, Runaway is only upset because he can't figure out how to "make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point".

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:13PM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:13PM (#1169398)

                              Popular? You know what your father said popular meant.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @10:53PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @10:53PM (#1169417)

                                Gay.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:02PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:02PM (#1168970)

                      As usual you make accusations without context, the famous conservative tactic of deception to gain support. #SAD #LowEnergy

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Friday August 20 2021, @08:27PM (2 children)

              by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @08:27PM (#1169010)

              Quoting out of text is extremely dishonest.

              --
              The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:45PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:45PM (#1169020)

                No, not necessarily. It might be a good-faith highlighting of a particular passage, especially where the content is readily available in the medium - which, in this case, it is.

                In other words, there's no inherent dishonesty at work here, and the quote is exact and relevant, so I don't see any dishonesty otherwise defined either.

                • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:09PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:09PM (#1169094)

                  What? The quote is absolutely out of context! It's clearly predicated on "if you're engaging in trolling, BUT manage to sneak a valid point in, you at best warrant a flamebait mod" and that logic is true, and is what all moderators should do, completely independent of authorship/attribution.

                  there's no inherent dishonesty at work here

                  ...did... you read the original context? I did... and you're either trolling, dishonest, extremely low in reading comprehension, or intellectually incompetent.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday August 20 2021, @11:08PM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @11:08PM (#1169093)

              You certainly don't understand context. _every_fucking_thing_is_racisssss_ with you and your fellow travelers.

              Heh. I do love how you complained about her not understanding context then you proceeded to badly describe said context. For the record: You wouldn't be frustrated by everything actually being called racist, you'd be bored with that. Your frustration instead comes when the callout is correct.

              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:00PM (#1168967)

            The comment you were replying to is necessary for context. Your comment on its own is:

            I'll Spam mod anything that's contentless slur-streaked drivel. Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point and you may get away with Flamebait, but if it's just the usual bullshit, it's spam. If you don't like it, leave. I'm doing nothing the admins are not either actively encouraging (Bytram) or blatantly signalling they'll look the other way on (FatPhil).

            That does sound bad, like you're persecuting someone because you simply don't like them bad.

            But when we include the comment you replied to it makes more sense:

            Well, that's pretty stupid. You don't ban them either. You just provide a convenient way for the users to filter them without affecting those who don't

            But she's just going to go nuts and spam mod everything that has the word "jew" in it. She is a very abusive modder. It's on her permanent record

            So you're talkign to the anti-semitic racist spammer and the probability of someone using "jew" in a non-prejudiced manner is very low. Hence why the AC throws accusations that any comment with the word "jew" in it will be modded down, they just want to pretend they are martyrs instead of not posting racist garbage.

            Every group of humans has members that suck, racism is a stupid generalization that tries to increase hatred across the planet.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:33PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:33PM (#1169015)

            The entire comment is quoted, exactly as you typed it, in the comment that is also linked upthread.

            So the entire comment is already present here.

            How about you explaining how the "surrounding context" explains the part quoted as Runaway's sig has a different meaning.

            Even reading every word of the full comment, the part quoted by Runaway's sig means exactly the same as it means from reading the part quoted in the sig.

            I.e., the surrounding context does not help you in your attempt to hand-wave away your admission of moderation abuse.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @09:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @09:13PM (#1169027)

              See the comment directly above. In full context her quote is fine, though slightly ambiguous enough to let you dream up a worse interpretation.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 20 2021, @09:52PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday August 20 2021, @09:52PM (#1169054) Journal

              "Moderation abuse" is an oxymoron. Not a Hydroxychloroquininemoron, but a meaningless phrase. Remember, moderation is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it appears to be abuse to you, does not mean it is not useful information to others.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:36PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:36PM (#1168957)

        Let me help you. What you have here is a problem that is pretty clearly delineable in information theoretical terms, intersecting with psychology.

        You're asking for information as metadata from a set of sources (moderators) contingent on a set of data (posts) with the intention of addressing a requirement to filter the data by the results of the metadata.

        The problem is that the analysis of the filtration quality does not rest with the moderators, but the readers, whose views are strongly varied, and manifestly often out of step with those of the most strident and politically-motivated moderators. (Just look at the number of people declaring that they read at -1; a number that you could probably verify with a quick search of the logs.) The moderators who have power over metadata (ab)use that power to serve their own ends, and you're trying to set up rules that are doomed to fail, not least because with so many moderations canceling each other out it's a cinch that high quality but controversial posts aren't getting the promotion that they merit. In other words, by misaligning power and motivation, you're measuring (i.e. deriving moderations) the wrong thing with respect to driving your (ostensible) quality measure.

        More importantly: there is no way out of this by handing power to moderators with any political leaning, and given that you have no means of preclearing moderators by their ability and commitment to soberly and honestly judge content you're fighting a never-ending rearguard action against raw partisanship. There is no victory condition in sight for you. People moderating on behalf of others will inevitably lead to attempts at ideologically-based promotion and censorship because that is precisely the power/incentive dynamic that you have created and maintained.

        Any moderation regime intended to succeed must necessarily be based on the views of the readers consuming the material, with possibly some ability, after the fact, to measure whose posts are highly regarded by readers. This means that moderation should be more akin to automatic reporting on filtration on the part of readers ignoring or promoting what they deem valuable, rather than what some moderator tells them that they should value.

        And if this means that nobody wants to read what khallow writes? That's tragic ... for nobody but him. Because they're not seeing what they're not inclined to spend their time on.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:15PM (#1168979)

          It's all agenda-driven, driving out or burying opposing views. From a political perspective, the moderation system is intentionally upside down. It's interesting to do a change-sign on the posts as you read.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday August 21 2021, @03:43AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @03:43AM (#1169164) Journal

          And if this means that nobody wants to read what khallow writes? That's tragic ... for nobody but him.

          Hi.

          Fortunately for my personal sense of tragedy, people do want to read what I write, making this conditional statement unnecessary. And I have a couple of measures of that interest other than modding (such as replies and people echoing my words not necessarily in agreement).

          Contrary to the previous post, I think moderation serves a couple of useful roles. It filters out a lot of crap and it provides a small positive feedback to people who contribute to discussions. And really how do we improve that?

          The moderators who have power over metadata (ab)use that power to serve their own ends, and you're trying to set up rules that are doomed to fail, not least because with so many moderations canceling each other out it's a cinch that high quality but controversial posts aren't getting the promotion that they merit. In other words, by misaligning power and motivation, you're measuring (i.e. deriving moderations) the wrong thing with respect to driving your (ostensible) quality measure.

          So how do we fix that problem you describe above? I notice that so much of this criticism never bothers to describe a better route or worse suggests going to moderators.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @04:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @04:53PM (#1169324)

            I included you purely as an example because I thought that you'd be a recognisable name, and relatively thick-skinned. Could have mentioned half-a-dozen others. And the proposal was in the post: give users individual moderation capability (i.e. for their comment/story/journal view only), and if you want an aggregate, then derive it from that. That aligns motivations and authority, rather than the misalignment that we presently have.

            If you want a more detailed feature proposal, then start with the idea of friends/foes as a basis, and enable logged-in users to determine who's too low-information for them to bother with (e.g. aristarchus), and whose value is substantial (e.g. khallow) so that the logged-in user then sees an automatically curated feed based on the voices that they deem worthy of consideration. Enable that on a sloppy-match basis for ACs, and pretty soon raising the perceived quality of discussion becomes a substantial reason to log in. But nobody ends up censoring anybody else's view of the discussion, and one could do all sorts of interesting analytics on relative valuation of participants by each other.

            The main criticism that I've seen leveled at this idea is the creation of echo chambers, but besides them being very sloppily defined echo chambers, that ship has sailed anyway so it is, at best, a wash on that front.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:51AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:51AM (#1169251)

        It isn't - but don't go away.

        Huh. Your invitation has all the panache of the Gov. of Montana inviting professionals and tech people to come back to Montana, while he is body-slamming journalists, and his AG is having charges dropped against right wing nut jobs who brandish weapons and punch people in the genitals. I feel as safe on SoylentNews now as I do in a night-spot in Helena!

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 21 2021, @11:00AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @11:00AM (#1169261) Journal

          The community have asked us to act - that is what we are trying to do. There is nothing underhand about any of this.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @04:44PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @04:44PM (#1168892)

      For an example of what the GP is referencing, see this comment [soylentnews.org] by one of the mod-abusers:

      I'll Spam mod anything that's contentless slur-streaked drivel. Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point and you may get away with Flamebait, but if it's just the usual bullshit, it's spam. If you don't like it, leave. I'm doing nothing the admins are not either actively encouraging (Bytram) or blatantly signalling they'll look the other way on (FatPhil).

      Now, in what sane world is modding "an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point" as flamebait considered reasonable?

      If you post an actual, interesting, germane and relevant point as one paragraph surrounded by a white supremacist rant, it will be downmodded. If you post it in the middle of an ad-hominem attack it will be downmodded. If it's an actual, interesting, germane and relevant point in reply to a comment that is off-topic, it will be downmodded.

      In other words, stick to the main story under discussion without wandering too far afield and be civil in your comments and it's all good. Resorting to name-calling, racial slurs or attempting to derail the conversion with off-topic commentary will get you downmodded.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:15PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:15PM (#1168946)

        That's not what I get from that paragraph. What I get is: post something opposed to the Revealed Gospel according to Azuma, and prepare for Spammod - unless Azuma feels that something in it redeems it (by her standards) in which case maybe just Flamebaitmod.

        This is blatant partisan modding, justified by a claim of official backing. There's nothing in there about the whole post having to be otherwise reprehensible, by any particular standard, and given her abundant, loudly stated track record we can reasonably deduce that anything that questions her herd of sacred cattle would fall foul of that standard.

        I haven't seen this actually put into action much, so I'm wondering whether some of the staff quietly took her aside to tell her to stop saying the quiet part loud, because it makes them all look bad.

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:05PM (#1168973)

          Piss off whiny little bitch, take your racist nonsense somewhere else or grow thicker skin and take the heat for your despicable views.

        • (Score: 2) by helel on Sunday August 22 2021, @01:51PM

          by helel (2949) on Sunday August 22 2021, @01:51PM (#1169586)

          If you consider "slur-streaked drivel" to be your partisan side maybe you should reconsider your views. At a bare minimum maybe you should try rephrasing your position without the use of slurs and see if it still sounds right.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by LabRat on Friday August 20 2021, @07:25PM (7 children)

      by LabRat (14896) on Friday August 20 2021, @07:25PM (#1168984)

      Ah, a Troll AC with a reading comprehension problem. I read the comments on that journal. I will insert the implied context that you and others are willfully ignoring into the quote below:

      I'll Spam mod anything that's contentless slur-streaked drivel. Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point {that contains contentless, slur-streaked drivel} and you may get away with Flamebait, but if it's just the usual bullshit, it's spam. If you don't like it, leave. I'm doing nothing the admins are not either actively encouraging (Bytram) or blatantly signalling they'll look the other way on (FatPhil).

      Racists will likely be moderated -1 by somebody, as Flamebait or Offtopic at least. I'm new-ish, so I'm not down-modding people. I intend to spend more time reading articles and submitting formatted posts than commenting or moderating, but some things are pretty clear-cut.

      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @09:18PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @09:18PM (#1169031)

        I will insert the implied context that you and others are willfully ignoring into the quote below

        Ah, but we are not willfully ignoring anything. The problem with "implied context" is that it is "implied" -- which means adding any in is often based upon nothing more than assumption.

        Zumi's "implied context" is just as validly interpreted as:

        I'll Spam mod anything that's contentless slur-streaked drivel. Make an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point {that I [Azuma] personally do not like, because it goes against the Revealed Dogma of Azuma} and you may get away with Flamebait, but if it's just the usual bullshit, it's spam. If you don't like it, leave. I'm doing nothing the admins are not either actively encouraging (Bytram) or blatantly signalling they'll look the other way on (FatPhil).

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by LabRat on Friday August 20 2021, @09:49PM (2 children)

          by LabRat (14896) on Friday August 20 2021, @09:49PM (#1169052)

          Validly? No. I added no interpretation. Read it again.

          This thread in the comments of the journal entry [soylentnews.org] was about racism in comments, which is where the "slur-streaked" in the quote comes from, which is in the sentence before it for a reason. I repeated it for you, but you would prefer to insert your own beliefs into someone else's mouth. Thus, I say willfully ignoring.

          Oh, well. I'm done feeding this particular troll (we? sockpuppeting?). I would rather go back to work than talk to a brick wall on my break.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:28PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:28PM (#1169070)

            I added no interpretation.

            Ah, but you indeed did add an interpretation. You added the interpretation of what you think was the thought in Azuma's head when she wrote the second sentence. But you have no way to know what thought was in her head when she wrote the second sentence. So you are adding your 'interpretation' (i.e., you have "insert[ed] your own beliefs into someone else's mouth.").

            Plus the context you believe should be read in to the sentence has already been taken out of the running by her first sentence. She said, in clear language, in that first sentence, that "anything" ("anything" is her word) containing "contentless slur-streaked drivel" would get a spam mod. Therefore, "an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point {that contains contentless, slur-streaked drivel}" would receive a spam mod (see first sentence of her comment), not flame bait, due to the presence of the "contentless, slur-streaked drivel". The flame bait sentence must therefore be referencing comments which do not "contain[s] contentless, slur-streaked drivel" because those have been fully covered by the first sentence.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by LabRat on Friday August 20 2021, @11:16PM

              by LabRat (14896) on Friday August 20 2021, @11:16PM (#1169100)

              Troll AC, while I do personally appreciate your pedantry (and it is the sole reason I'm replying again), I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion.

              To clarify what I mean by inserting beliefs (and implying), I used Azuma's own words from earlier in the same post to further clarify its meaning, whereas you used both your own words and your own opinion of Azuma to color your interpretation.

              Secondarily, you are skipping a contraction, "that's" in the quote, which provides additional meaning. "Anything {that is} contentless slur-streaked drivel..." is one point, whereas "an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point {that contains contentless, slur-streaked drivel}..." is a comparative, slight differentiation from the point in sentence 1, which is why it receives a different moderation.

              Please, do try to keep up. Am I explaining it slowly and pedantically enough for you?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:13PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:13PM (#1169097)

        Hey LabRat! I'm one of the ACs and I'd like to welcome you warmly. I appreciate your outlook and that you have hitherto refrained from downmods generally. I hope you continue to engage in good faith discussions, and am very pleased to see you express moderateness (moderation, but, you know, overloaded meaning here). Thanks for raising the level of the discussions!

        Welcome!

        • (Score: 1) by LabRat on Friday August 20 2021, @11:24PM (1 child)

          by LabRat (14896) on Friday August 20 2021, @11:24PM (#1169108)

          Thank you, kind AC. The reason I say that I am new-ish is that I was also a no-account, AC-submitting lurker AC for >1yr before I made this account to comment tracably (in the past couple weeks). We'll see whether I comment much or not, but when I do, I will only use AC for comments with personally-identifying information; will try to submit articles more when I can.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @11:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @11:18PM (#1169430)

            Ah! You mean you listened and peripherally participated before elbowing in? If only in real life, people were so thoughtful.

            If you wish, you can submit articles as AC also, when for some reason admitting that LabRat knows would be leaking info.

            And I completely believe that you're in good faith; bad faith actors smear and insert noise to corrupt signal, and don't bother coming back to reply as you have here.

            I'm IRL smiling because of you, stranger. Silly! Still true. Nice when friendly folks move in next door. :)

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:05PM (#1169091)

      Now, in what sane world is modding "an actual interesting, germane, and relevant point" as flamebait considered reasonable?

      When the point is framed in a troll or flame manner, or couched in otherwise bad-actor phrasing.

      If I make a good point but I insist on using Hitler and Goebbels as the names of hypothetical people, it's flamebait even if germane.

      Is that clear now?

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @05:52AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @05:52AM (#1169175) Homepage
    It is a good point. Which is why I added the sentence that addresses that to the fucking article.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves