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.
1 (2) 3 4
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dltaylor on Friday August 20 2021, @10:53AM (2 children)

    by dltaylor (4693) on Friday August 20 2021, @10:53AM (#1168784)

    I have not been in agreement with all of the moderation I have received, but it is rarely (not never) egregious.

    If the team wants to experiment with/implement some changes, it's your house (much as we like hanging out with you), so go for it. We've seen how much "poison" has been spread by "bad actors" all over the Internet (yeah, I'm old enough to still capitalize it). You're documenting the rules of thumb, so no one can claim that they did not know the "rules of the house". I have friends, not all Japanese, for example, that prefer the interior of their home to be shoeless. Fine, let me know so I can have clean feet and something like toe socks for traction. Others allow their dogs a great deal of freedom. Again, let me know, so I'm prepared for a golden retriever that thinks it is a "lap dog".

    Thank you for publishing.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 20 2021, @04:07PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @04:07PM (#1168869) Journal

      for a golden retriever that thinks it is a "lap dog".

      LOL - two thoughts came to mind immediately.

      A golden retriever who thinks she is one of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Lapphund. [wikipedia.org]

      And, second, "You mean a golden retriever isn't a lap dog?" Holy smokes, the kids have a huge, hulking Great Dane who also thinks she's a lap dog!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @05:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @05:44PM (#1168931)

        "Lapp" != lap.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:58AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:58AM (#1168786)

    I don't really care what the rules are as long as they and the rulings made pursuant to them are public. That is the only way to be accountable by and to the users.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday August 20 2021, @11:28AM

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Friday August 20 2021, @11:28AM (#1168789)

      There goes your chances of being elected to public office...

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:26PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:26PM (#1168986)

      Seconded.

      My two cents - comments modded as spam should show up on a spam list with a link somewhere on the frontpage.

      Anyone sock puppeting should be outed along with the evidence of their actions and account names. If this is a real community then it will not survive long if it depends on a special counsel making all judgments in secret, staff abuse has happened before though thankfully not excessive.

      Submissions should have some public feedback, add moderation to article submissions and any stories that cross a certain threshold are published OR a staff member needs to write an explanation for the rejection. If the worry is too many stories being published then break off the others into a sub page list like "community articles" or something.

      Not sure if this would be a good idea, but make moderations public. Let users own their moderation reputations. I say not sure because I can see that devolving into vengeful mods.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @08:18PM (1 child)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @08:18PM (#1169006) Journal

        Not sure if this would be a good idea, but make moderations public. Let users own their moderation reputations. I say not sure because I can see that devolving into vengeful mods.

        So can we, You have answered your own question.

        add moderation to article submissions and any stories that cross a certain threshold are published OR a staff member needs to write an explanation for the rejection

        1. I only have time to publish a handful (4-5) submissions per day. And you want me to write explanations as to why I don't have enough time to sort the others out.?
        2. I donate my current time for free. If you want to employ me please contact me directly and we can discuss remuneration, holiday allowances. out-of-hours charges, etc. I'm so pleased that you have made this suggestion.
        3. See my posts elsewhere about 'cannot do code changes' without a programmer. How good are you at Perl? When can you start?
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @08:23PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @08:23PM (#1169008) Journal

          You do know that nobody working on this site gets paid, don't you? You were joking with your suggestions weren't you?

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 20 2021, @09:40PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday August 20 2021, @09:40PM (#1169048) Journal

        Submissions should have some public feedback, add moderation to article submissions and any stories that cross a certain threshold are published OR a staff member needs to write an explanation for the rejection. If the worry is too many stories being published then break off the others into a sub page list like "community articles" or something.

        This seems impractical to me for a volunteer-maintained community. It also rather compounds the problem of moderation abuse by extending it to the very story pipeline. The ability to filter stories by topic already exists, and people should use it.

        Not sure if this would be a good idea, but make moderations public. Let users own their moderation reputations. I say not sure because I can see that devolving into vengeful mods.

        I like this idea more, because transparency usually curbs dirty dealing.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @03:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @03:35AM (#1169162)

          "because transparency usually curbs dirty dealing."

          it can create more social drama and make people not want to mod someone down, or mod down more in revenge

          was it ever a thing?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday August 20 2021, @01:10PM (35 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Friday August 20 2021, @01:10PM (#1168812) Homepage Journal

    First off thanks for all your hard work guys. It seems like you're more or less on the right track with all this, trying to keep up the quality of SoylentNews discussion whilst keeping it community-driven and open to all.

    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'. [...] Excess 'up mods' beyond 4 per day are subject to being reversed.

    I'd recommend an exception to the above rule when a user is upmodding to reverse repeated inappropriate downmods on a user (i.e. to reverse moderation abuse). Here's some discussion [soylentnews.org] of this sort of thing that I'm sure you're already aware of. Now I'll wait to be told that we should ask an admin to reverse the abuse instead. :)

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @03:28PM (33 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @03:28PM (#1168854) Journal

      Rather than expect the community to use their mod points to address moderation abuse, we are developing an admin method to do this so that the community does not suffer. If a user has evidence, or at least a high level of confidence, that a moderation is being done by a sock puppet the administrators need to be told [admin (at) soylentnews.org]. We can then examine the records to see if any action needs to be taken. This is not an instantaneous process but it will be investigated.

      If it is just normal moderation that a user disagrees with (i.e. not abuse) then the community already have the tools and moderation points to solve that problem.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Friday August 20 2021, @03:55PM (4 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Friday August 20 2021, @03:55PM (#1168863) Homepage Journal

        We can then examine the records to see if any action needs to be taken. This is not an instantaneous process but it will be investigated.

        Is the evident mod-bombing of the two users mentioned in my link (performed by up to 3 different accounts) under investigation?

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @06:55PM (3 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @06:55PM (#1168964) Journal

          You will have to keep watching - the coming days might be interesting. (Or not depending on your point of view)

          However, we are not going to name names under investigation until we know the outcome - it would be quite wrong to publicise accounts until we know whether they have, or have not, been abusing the system.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:18PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:18PM (#1169102)

            Thank you for this restraint. Otherwise would be grossly unjust.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:16AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:16AM (#1169206)

              Thank you for this restraint. Otherwise would be grossly unjust.

              Secrecy does not make it any less unjust, only less democratic. If the Admins ban someone, the average Soylentil should know about it. If someone is banned from moderating, Soylentils should know who, and why. And if a Soylentil is banned from AC posting, everyone needs to know what the offending posts were, and why this is considered actionable cause. Otherwise, we are living in a dictatorship! [50webs.com]

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:14PM

                by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:14PM (#1169271)

                But the post in question never said that, only that they wouldn't name names until they'd finished investigating. No claims made about afterwards.

                There are real world juristrictions with things like a right to anonymity until charged. This doesn't feel that different to me.

                I too would like to know about the outome of Admin interventions, though. As a regular reader and infrequent poster, I feel that much of this intervention passes me by. But then again, I tend to glaze over threads of personal argument and bickering in the comments. I'd be happy with an anonymised, aggregated form of admin feedback, really.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:30PM (27 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:30PM (#1169012)

        If a user has evidence, or at least a high level of confidence, that a moderation is being done by a sock puppet the administrators need to be told [admin (at) soylentnews.org]. We can then examine the records to see if any action needs to be taken.

        "We found a witch, may we burn her?" High level of confidence is a low bar. We have no idea how many actual sock puppets there are on SN, only rampant accusations. I think all downmodding of myself is done by sock puppets, because no one would ever disagree with such a reasonable person as myself.

        We have no idea who mods what. Even Spam mods are hard to find, even if you are the recipient. We have no idea how many mods are reversed, if any. We do not know who has been banned from moderation, or who has been reprieved. We have no idea of who has been punished for sock puppetry, if anyone has so far. Finally, we have no idea what any Soylentil's karma is, besides our own. And, we have no real way to tell how that is moved by modding, or other things.

        And, moderation means nothing, since it does not remove posts that deserve it. It does not remove users who are abusive. But if we start kicking users, because of a majority opinion, even, we will have undercut one of the founding values of SN?

        Just a few thoughts from an AC, who the admins can out be checking the logs. But, if they do that, . . .

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @08:42PM (1 child)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @08:42PM (#1169019) Journal

          I would hope that 'high degree of confidence' is not interpreted as 'I just think it might be a sock-puppet'. Some people are quite good at spotting speech patterns, or remembering and identifying other features of a comment. But we are busy and as I have already said nothing will be instantaneous, or even rapid, particularly as we are still trying to fill our existing roles too.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @08:57PM (#1169022)

            Some people are quite good at spotting speech patterns, or remembering and identifying other features of a comment.

            Or, some people think they are. I think you think that what some people think is enough of a ground for banning a soylentil. It is all your fault, janrinok!

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @09:31PM (22 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @09:31PM (#1169042) Journal

          And, moderation means nothing, since it does not remove posts that deserve it.

          That depends upon your personal settings which, as an AC, you have intentionally discarded along with your own ability to moderate. How is that my problem? You can still log in with a user account with the benefits that it brings and yet tick the 'post anonymously' option to hide your identity from the community.

          We do not know who has been banned from moderation, or who has been reprieved. We have no idea of who has been punished for sock puppetry, if anyone has so far

          I'm genuinely curious, how would knowing any of that change the way you read comments? If people have been banned from moderation you might notice because they no longer moderate, or perhaps they just don't have a strong opinion. Another person's karma doesn't mean anything to you - what would you do with that knowledge?

          The publicity of our actions is a dilemma that we are currently discussing - the balance between privacy of the individual and the community's understandable desire to know what is happening 'behind the scenes' as it were. We will always endeavour to involve the community to the maximum extent possible. Some of those who have been penalised discuss it on IRC, some deny it all and claim it is all a right-wing/left-wing/lizard people conspiracy, and others take it on the chin and serve their ban in silence.

          My own view - which might not agree with your own - is that it is the individual's personal choice but that is NOT a SN wide policy statement , just my own view. If they take it the way it is meant they are welcome to stay and remain in the community after serving their ban. Publicly shaming them might only encourage further division in the community and result in people trying to 'get even' for perceived wrongs even if they were not the reason that the ban was imposed in the first instance. This would have the opposite effect from that which we are trying to achieve.

          Sockpuppet Accounts: These are hereby forbidden.

          I can tell you that since that rule came into force less than 12 hours ago nobody has yet been punished for sock puppetry - but things might change. (20Aug2115UTC) Just don't expect a massive list of punishments being announced. They each deserve to be investigated properly and discussed by those who are responsible for making the decisions. And this is an additional task for an already very stretched team.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 20 2021, @10:12PM (21 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday August 20 2021, @10:12PM (#1169061) Journal

            If people have been banned from moderation you might notice because they no longer moderate,

            Care to expand upon this, janrinok? Since moderation is anonymous, how could we tell any particular soylentil has stopped? Asking for a friend.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @10:33PM (20 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @10:33PM (#1169076) Journal
              That is a very interesting question. Of course, there are those usernames on this site that are so convinced that they are being systematically down-modded by one or more accounts that they begin retaliating against them. How, do you imagine, they could be so sure who was down-modding them? Ask your friend, I suspect that he knows the answer.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:24PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @11:24PM (#1169107)

                BAM! You hit that nail right on it's flat little head! And, drove it home in one hit!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:07AM (#1169118)

                  But, but, . . . it was the wrong nail!

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:34AM (17 children)

                by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:34AM (#1169126) Journal

                No, Runaway thinks I am still modding him down! So I don't think he could tell.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @02:00AM (16 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @02:00AM (#1169143)

                  And the only reason you stopped, is that they took your keys away.

                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 21 2021, @02:46AM (15 children)

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 21 2021, @02:46AM (#1169155) Journal

                    Well, he does merit downmodding. Boring, uneducated, right-wing bubble stuff, constantly, and the hatred of Democrats and democracy in general. Misogyny! Blue-collar racism! And overhyped gun nuttiness. I recommend that everyone mod Runaway1956 down at every opportunity.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @03:43AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @03:43AM (#1169163)

                      Yeah, maybe we need a tribunal. Have users resolve conflict by making the details of their mods discussed in a community group, or just make mods transparent for all. As you say runaway posts lots of misinformation and propaganda articles that are deserving of downmodding. He can downmod any liberal propaganda stuff he wants, then the tribunal can review the various mods and make a ruling. Maybe the tribunal must be public on the site, but no AC chatter.

                    • (Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday August 21 2021, @05:08AM (13 children)

                      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @05:08AM (#1169171) Journal

                      This is precisely how you should NOT moderate - you are moderating an individual and not the content of his comment. Just because somebody has different views to yourself does not mean you automatically should moderate every comment that they make. Mark it 'Disagree' and either move on or, better still, respond with a cogent argument. If you dislike everything a person says, mark him as a foe and then allocate foes with a minus level of personal moderation on your user page. You will no longer see any of their posts. You chose the level and so can fine tune it to suit your requirements.

                      People are entitled to have different views from yourself.

                      This is a prime example of you not understanding how to use the tools that we have provided for you.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:27AM (3 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:27AM (#1169207)

                        you are moderating an individual and not the content of his comment.

                        If only, janrinok, you understood the pain of the rest of us, when Runaway says something right. It is a rare occurence, and often wrongly motivated, but the fact that such an asshole as Runaway has posted it leads to a conundrum: do we mod it up, for content, and thus up the standing of an asshole? Or mod him down as the asshole he is, but to the detriment of the moderation system as a whole? I tend to just mod him down, since he is an asshole, and I do not think it affects the moderation system for everyone to know that Runaway1956 is a self-admitted asshole. In fact, he may be the one individual being the entire moderation crisis. Have you read his opinions on Critical Moderation Theory, yet?

                        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:36AM (2 children)

                          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:36AM (#1169243) Journal

                          I do not have to agree with Runaway1956 to believe that he has the right to hold a different view from myself, of from you, or from anyone else. Equally, he has the right to express himself on this site.

                          In fact, I strongly object to most of what he says - but he still has the right to say it. You have the right to moderate him, but only for what he says - not for who he is.

                          If you are simply unable to defeat him with a well thought through argument, then perhaps it is you that should be quieter.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:21AM (1 child)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:21AM (#1169505)

                            I do not have to agree with Runaway1956 to believe that he has the right to hold a different view from myself, of from you, or from anyone else.

                            Exactly. However, there are an awful lot of controlling personality types who operate under the belief that all others must have the identical viewpoint as themselves, and anyone who differs from their viewpoint is the second coming of Satan and must be smashed into oblivion.

                            With the result that there are a huge number of moderators who moderate based upon whether a comment agrees or disagrees with their personal viewpoint. If the comment agrees, they upmod, if it disagrees, they downmod. I.e., they are attempting to inflate the visibility of their viewpoint, and suppress anything that might go against their viewpoint.

                            If you are simply unable to defeat him with a well thought through argument, then perhaps it is you that should be quieter.

                            Sadly, the personality types that deal in identity politics don't want the bother of having to formulate a "well thought through argument". They simply do not want to see an opposing viewpoint, ever. They want to live in their echo chamber, seeing and hearing only things they already agree with.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @02:00PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @02:00PM (#1169587)

                              Sunds like Republicans to me, insisting reality is not real and using violence to try and force their decisions upon others. NT though, probably means you're an ideological sock puppeter.

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:04AM (8 children)

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:04AM (#1169228) Journal

                        People are entitled to have different views from yourself.

                        This is what you fail to understand, janrinok. Not surprising, since the military has to hold that both sides can be right, otherwise there is the possibility that you are the baddies. (Do we have to link that Mitchell and Penn skit [dailymotion.com] again? Evidently.)

                        [Just war doctrine, which is not international law, holds that a soldier is not responsible for the justice of the cause for which he fights, as long as he fights according to the rules of ius in bello, or the rules of engagement. But it does leave open the possibility, that if a combatant knew the cause be unjust, he is just as responsible as the sovereign that sent him into it. Is it this erosion of the idea that both sides could fight in good faith that disturbs you, janrinok? I am interested in your understanding.]

                        But for us, in Academia, we know that people are not entitled to any such thing. If they have different views, it most often means that they have not thought through what it is they think they know. A Rat's Anus?

                        So, jan, let us here prove the vacuouness of of the conservatives. We do not have to respect idiocy and ignorance, in fact, we are honor bound to call it out, refute it, and mock those who try to spread it. Which side are you on, janrinok? Are you a Roundhead, or a Cavalier? A "KnowNothing", or a Liberal Democrat? Perhaps, Labour?

                        “If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.”
                        (Bates, Act 4, Scene 1)

                        The Bard, janrinok, the Bard himself, written in satire. No, they are not so entitled. They are the unjust enemy, and their obedience to their king does not wipe any crime out of them. See Runaway's latest journal. The man is a Traitor, a Rebel, and not too smart.

                        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:10PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:10PM (#1169346)

                          As long as your downmods are reasonable I see no prbllem, and runaway posta enough propaganda he is limely to be modded down frequently. I've seen Azuma exclaim she was shocked to agree with runaway on occasion, so I don't think he is being persecuted like he claims. Just can't stand the heat of criticism for his rightwing lunacy he likes to spread.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:12PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:12PM (#1169347)

                          What hubris. Please, continue.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:24AM (5 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:24AM (#1169507)

                          But for us, in Academia, we know that people are not entitled to any such thing. If they have different views, it most often means that they have not thought through what it is they think they know.

                          Ah.... problem detected right there.

                          No wonder such crapola as critical race theory arises from all the pampered ivy league academics.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:45AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:45AM (#1169515)

                            At this point, I think that aristarchus is a parody account. I'm having a hard time imagining any of my past professors seriously proposing the idea that anyone who disagreed with them was necessarily wrong, with the exception of some particular findings in fields such as formal logic and mathematics. In any of the humanities, even many aspects of empirical sciences, the default assumption wasn't that one was wrong, without at least checking the evidence on hand.

                            Actually, scratch that. There was one, in economics, but she didn't stick around for long. I'm pretty sure the rest of the faculty got sick of her shit.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:32PM (3 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:32PM (#1169616)

                            Slud one by you! "But for us, in Academia" means he's a kid in school. But he absolutely is learning that CRT, the 1619 Project, and American Socialism (with an M) are the indefatigable truth and law of the land. That's what he spent the summer trying to convince everyone of, again-and-again, in his "journals."

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @01:40AM (2 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @01:40AM (#1169733)

                              At this point, I think that aristarchus is a parody account. I'm having a hard time imagining any of my past professors seriously proposing the idea that anyone who disagreed with them was necessarily wrong,

                              But there were some idiots attempting to debate the professors, (Think, Campus Crusade for Young Republicans, or Turning Point), who were easily recognized as "not even being wrong". If you do not have enough understanding of the subject matter to intelligently participate in the debate, then you are "not even wrong". Or if you think that science and scholarship are popularity contests, like war and SN moderation.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @01:49AM (1 child)

                                by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @01:49AM (#1169734)

                                Sure, or creationists (sorry, "intelligent design proponents") or other loonies. But even they received an actual response on the merits, or after a while, a reference to a standard library of content rebutting their points. In other words, their points were answered in good faith rather than rejected because someone with a bunch of letters behind his name got all huffy about it.

                                To put it another way, being an academic with the credibility attached to the position is something to be not merely earned, but maintained. Break the rules of scholarship by simply waving away the inconvenient? You forfeit the credibility and you're just another partisan flag-waver, telling people to trust, in effect, the letters behind the name and not the work behind the letters.

                                And that is the horse that has bolted the stables of Aristarchus.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @02:10AM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @02:10AM (#1169736)

                                  I was thinking of saying something against teachers' unions, but you already covered it.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:16AM (1 child)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:16AM (#1169180) Homepage
          > "We found a witch, may we burn her?" High level of confidence is a low bar.

          There's nothing wrong with asking "may we burn her?", you fucking retard. Fortunately the people who are in a place to give an answer are a thousand times smarter than you. And *ABSOLUTELY NO WEIGHT* is given to the asking of the question. Only the evidence matters.

          > I think all downmodding of myself is done by sock puppets

          Nope. You're A/C. You're never downmodded because you don't exist. Apparently by choice - you're so ashamed of what you write you don't want to own it. Identify yourself, and we can address the question.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:30AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:30AM (#1169208)

            FatPhil is showing signs of not being capable of being in a position of responsibility on SN. The God thing is bad enough. But all the beer. Early onset, I do perceive.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:08AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:08AM (#1169179) Homepage
      > upmodding to reverse repeated inappropriate downmods

      and vice versa. Man, you've not seen some of the examples. The bad actors are all over both sides of this game. Which is nice, as it really helps us draw connections between their sock-puppets. Real honeypots. They just can't resist. MOAR HONEY!
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday August 20 2021, @01:44PM (3 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Friday August 20 2021, @01:44PM (#1168821) Journal

    that'll get rid of idiots and keep a 'good' general discussion going is great and I'll golf clap it to heck!

    Too many 'discussions' are being trashed by trolls and idiots and agendas. It'd be good to see it go and have us return to the 'good old days' at the beginning.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:43PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:43PM (#1168994)

      It'll be interesting to find the absolutely true meaning of "trolls and idiots and agendas." Based on previous meanings, The "'good' general discussion" won't change. You're already running low on "idiots."

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:28AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:28AM (#1169508)

        It'll be interesting to find the absolutely true meaning of "trolls and idiots and agendas."

        To some on SN, the meaning of "troll" is: "anyone arrogant enough to post a comment in reply to one of my own that in any way implies that I might be incorrect in even the slightest manner". I.e., prima-donna syndrome: I know I'm right, all you people telling me I'm wrong are just trolling.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:47AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 22 2021, @04:47AM (#1169516) Journal
          I wanted to give 2 moderations to this comment - but in the end elected to go with Funny. It is both insightful and accurate, yet still neatly encapsulates what is happening with a wry twist of humour. If that wasn't what you were trying to achieve, I apologise.
  • (Score: 2) by r_a_trip on Friday August 20 2021, @01:53PM (6 children)

    by r_a_trip (5276) on Friday August 20 2021, @01:53PM (#1168825)

    Just let the mod points sit... You can't run afoul over rules, when you don't use the stuff that is regulated. They are meaningless and useless anyway. It always annoys me more that I have to find the settings to get my threads uncensored off the bat and at the lowest mod setting. I decide what is valuable to me and no one else. Yes, I see noise, but I also don't miss out on mismodded comments.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @02:19PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @02:19PM (#1168833)

      But the end goal of the mod bombers is to get SN to block a user or IP from posting at all.

      Even registered users can fall victim to this, but AC posting is precious, and I have been spending all my mod posts trying to rescue AC posts that aren't outright trolls from -1 ratings. (thanks hemocyanin for your project!)

      What about the Spam mod? At one time it got a human review and mod ban action if abused, but one of the users has been crowing that it has become "liberalized".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:53PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:53PM (#1168963)

        The problem with this model is that it actively discourages membership activity except among modbombers. The response is rational, but it's almost certainly not what the original creators and current administrators wanted to achieve.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @07:22PM (#1168983)

          The problem from my perspective is that it drives down the quality of my posts. I won't waste a lot of time if it will be chucked-aside, anyway. Nobody learns; nobody grows; nobody has their day made a little happier. It's just gamesmanship.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @09:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @09:33PM (#1169044)

        What about the Spam mod? At one time it got a human review and mod ban action if abused, but one of the users has been crowing that it has become "liberalized".

        dafuq? ys it always poltickle fer one grooper?

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:18AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:18AM (#1169182) Homepage
        > But the end goal of the mod bombers is to get SN to block a user or IP from posting at all.

        That sentence literally makes no sense at all. The only thing a mod-bomber can achieve by mod-bombing is to remove his own right to mod.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 22 2021, @05:15AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 22 2021, @05:15AM (#1169521) Journal

        What about the Spam mod? At one time it got a human review and mod ban action if abused, but one of the users has been crowing that it has become "liberalized".

        When the SN team was much larger there was usually an editor or admin logged in to the site monitoring both the site and IRC. Spam and other abuse would be spotted much more quickly than it is today, and they could act immediately. That is now impossible to achieve with the lower manning state that we currently have.

        However - every significant down mod is flagged to the staff but it may be some time before they are in a position to take action. Some problems (e.g mod-bombing) are judged over an extended period and thus cannot be automatically detected and reported until some time later. This tends to result in admins trying to keep an eye on the day's latest stories while also having to go back to investigate potential abuses that occurred a day or even 2 days earlier.

        But I can assure you that every spam mod, mod-bombing report, and just plain undesirable moderation pattern is looked at by a human being. We only have the same number of mod-points as you have - usually I was only able to redress the most important infractions of the moderation guidelines. That is why intelligent moderation, as carried out by the majority of our community, is so important

        What we are discussing here are alternative procedures that have been introduced to address moderation abuses - in which sock-puppet accounts, collusion between multiple users and systematic down-modding of specific accounts regardless of the comments being made are currently amongst the most prevalent.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Friday August 20 2021, @02:25PM (2 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Friday August 20 2021, @02:25PM (#1168835) Homepage Journal

    Insert some joke about disco music. Or is it too soon?

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @08:32PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @08:32PM (#1169014) Journal

      Not too soon at all....

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @06:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @06:30AM (#1169766)

      Gallows humor n. - Comedy that makes light of recent death.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @02:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @02:28PM (#1168838)

    moderation in all things, including moderation?

  • (Score: 2) by drussell on Friday August 20 2021, @02:31PM (4 children)

    by drussell (2678) on Friday August 20 2021, @02:31PM (#1168840) Journal

    Way back when the decision was made to basically always give all accounts 10 mod points per day, I said it was going to "sure make abuse easy."

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:20AM (3 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:20AM (#1169183) Homepage
      99% of the problem is the people who have 40 modpoints a day. Limiting it to 5 per account would just get them to use more sock-puppets. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with 10 modpoints per day. For me, that's often not enough.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by drussell on Monday August 23 2021, @02:02PM (2 children)

        by drussell (2678) on Monday August 23 2021, @02:02PM (#1169860) Journal

        It isn't the 10 mod points that is the issue, it is giving them to all (or mostly all, unless your karma is in the toilet?) accounts every day.

        More active accounts that actually post, for example, should be more likely to get mod points. You should need to be active on the site to consistently get mod points most days.

        Sock puppet accounts which don't post anything useful, yet get points every day simply makes abuse easier.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 23 2021, @02:26PM (1 child)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 23 2021, @02:26PM (#1169875) Homepage
          You made the 10 points the issue. The state before there being 10 points per day was that there were 5 points per day.

          Restriction of mod points to only actively-posting accounts is often mooted, but no-one's offered a patch to implement it yet. I think everyone's too scared of the fragility of the code-base.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by drussell on Monday August 23 2021, @03:21PM

            by drussell (2678) on Monday August 23 2021, @03:21PM (#1169885) Journal

            It was the whole package of change, not just doubling the points...

            I said way back then, and again now, that going from accounts sometimes getting 5 modpoints on the one hand to virtually every account always getting 10 modpoints each and every day was going to be an invitation to foster easy abuse.

            I stand by that.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @03:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @03:00PM (#1168847)

    I mean, it doesn't affect my reading of SN because I browse at -1. The changes will only affect (at most) people who for some reason set their browse settings higher. As long as SN allows AC accounts and browsing ALL comments, I guess I am good. Call me crazy, but I like to judge posts for myself. Let all speak.

    Thanks for the attention to this issue and attempt to fix it, though.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday August 20 2021, @03:49PM (33 children)

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @03:49PM (#1168860)
    Would it be possible to have some sort of reply-to mechanism to challenge a reprimand on the use of spam mods? I have on a few occasions used it for ACs posting off-topic racist remarks. One one instance of this ... and I apologize I am going from memory here... but I got a message from martyb saying they understood why I did it but it didn't meet the standards of the spam mod. Now I'm not bringing this up to challenge that specific ruling... I mean ultimately what the staff at SN says goes so let's just assume I'm 100% wrong on that case, but he ended the message with "if you continue to abuse the spam mod we'll remove your mod status." (NOT verbatim!!)

    So I clearly wasn't aiming to be abusive with it, but don't do it again!!! K... but... what if I don't know WHY that specific case didn't work? Again, not trying to re-open a resolved issue, but he and I clearly had a different idea of how the rule is interpreted. So now I'm just not using that mod anymore. I mean if that's what you want... cool... but sometimes I catch the early bullshit.

    BTW in my case even if I were just to be able to say "My bad... I'll be better about it", at least then the SN staff would know I'm not using the moderation system as a club.
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @04:04PM (32 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @04:04PM (#1168866)

      As I noted in another comment, the spam mod is very ambiguous.

      Azuma Hazuki says she directly received permission from martyb [soylentnews.org] to spam mod racist comments. But that's not reflected at all in the official guidelines.

      If this is so murky, then maybe the editors should learn a lesson from Rob Malda and use their unlimited mod points to remove the obvious garbage. Reduce the amount of mod points given to ordinary users, but tell them to focus on modding up good comments.

      Instead, the editors shirk their responsibility, allowing obvious spam like the APK crapflood in this journal [soylentnews.org] to avoid being modded down, saying it's up to the community to police the spam. If the guidelines are ambiguous and the problems severe enough that the community can't police them, then the editors need to step in and use their unlimited mod points. They refuse, even for the most blatant of abuses.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday August 20 2021, @04:14PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @04:14PM (#1168877)

        But that's not reflected at all in the official guidelines.

        Why would it need to be called out? It's off-topic. In fact that right there is the reason these rules exist AND they're in conflict. Heh.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fnord666 on Friday August 20 2021, @05:15PM (8 children)

        by Fnord666 (652) on Friday August 20 2021, @05:15PM (#1168906) Homepage

        As I noted in another comment, the spam mod is very ambiguous.

        Azuma Hazuki says she directly received permission from martyb [soylentnews.org] to spam mod racist comments. But that's not reflected at all in the official guidelines.

        If this is so murky, then maybe the editors should learn a lesson from Rob Malda and use their unlimited mod points to remove the obvious garbage. Reduce the amount of mod points given to ordinary users, but tell them to focus on modding up good comments.

        Instead, the editors shirk their responsibility, allowing obvious spam like the APK crapflood in this journal [soylentnews.org] to avoid being modded down, saying it's up to the community to police the spam. If the guidelines are ambiguous and the problems severe enough that the community can't police them, then the editors need to step in and use their unlimited mod points. They refuse, even for the most blatant of abuses.

        Editors do not have "unlimited mod points". We get the same 10 mod points per day that everyone else does.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:23PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:23PM (#1168952)

          Nonsense. It would be very simple to modify the code to give editors unlimited mod points, just to take out the trash. But for some reason, you expect it's the community's job to clean up even APK's crapfloods when it would be very easy for you to put an end to them.

          Give the editors unlimited mod points. For everyone else, assign them randomly, to users who have positive karma and have recently made a number of positive contributions (e.g., good comments, stories posted to the front page, etc...). This isn't hard. It's just that you're unwilling to do what's necessary to solve the problem.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @07:33PM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @07:33PM (#1168990) Journal

            It's just that you're unwilling to do what's necessary to solve the problem.

            Not quite - just reading this thread indicates that the community does not agree as to what exactly the problem is. We have identified one problem - moderation abuse - and we are doing what's necessary to solve that problem. But, it just isn't what you wanted.

            It would be very simple to modify the code to give editors unlimited mod points

            Bearing in mind that WE CANNOT DO ANY SIGNIFICANT CODE CHANGES WITHOUT A PROGRAMMER we are having to find alternative remedies for different problems. We can change the number of mod points being issued, but your solution would require us to test for admin staff, or is it just editors, and only give them more points? And how we you ensure that the extra points were only used to address the issues that you have raised and not to up/down mod our own personal favourites - because that would make us different from the rest of the community, wouldn't it? And while one of us is coding and rebuilding the program - which one of you would volunteer to train as an editor to take up the daily task?

            Of course, if the code had been structured differently, if they had used a different language, if we were not using an out-of-date version of Perl, if slashcode had been better documented, if we had more staff, if we didn't all have real world issues to deal with, and lives to live.... But we have what we have. Perhaps we can find a way and we are still looking.

            Over to you, Einstein...

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by LabRat on Friday August 20 2021, @07:35PM

            by LabRat (14896) on Friday August 20 2021, @07:35PM (#1168991)

            Editors/staff don't have unlimited time to mod posts. Seems like a bad work-around.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:24AM (4 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:24AM (#1169187) Homepage
            >> Editors do not ...
            > Nonsense. It would be ...

            Wow. Nice demonstration that you're unable to distinguish between facts and hypotheticals. No wonder you post AC, I wouldn't want to own that level of stupidity.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:31AM (3 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:31AM (#1169191) Homepage
              I should expand on that.

              We absolutely don't want the site run by "gods". I've been offered more god powers repeatedly, and have repeatedly rejected them. I have powers to sniff around and discover if mod abuses have occured when someone thinks they're being modbombed, for example, but absolutely no ability to act on what I find. And the people who do have the powers don't have the time to do all the sniffing around that's required, as they have plenty of other things to do that's more pressing.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:34AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @07:34AM (#1169212)

                I wish I could say I was re-assured, FatPhil. But now, I am even less confident in the Soylent system.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @02:41PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @02:41PM (#1169290)

                  I wish I could say I was re-assured, FatPhil. But now, I am even less confident in the Soylent system.

                  The door is right over there. Don't let it hit you on the ass on your way out.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:21PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:21PM (#1169349) Journal

                    This ^ is really constructive - NOT!

                    Reminds me of a couple members who openly advocate that the whole thing be burned down if SN can't be made to conform to their personal expectations. The evidence of that is hidden away in the IRC logs - sorry, I can't be assed to open them all up and search for the comments.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by https on Friday August 20 2021, @05:57PM (15 children)

        by https (5248) on Friday August 20 2021, @05:57PM (#1168937) Journal

        Racism meets the criteria for spam moderation. It's fucking boring, boring, boringly repetitious, we have all seen too much of it, and no amount of it ever adds anything of value to a conversation. Yet somehow suckers end up buying into it again and again. As long as there are two or more racists on SN, permitting such crap wide visibility encourages more of it - which in the long run leads to mass graves and such.

        As long as there's only one racist on SN, permitting such crap wide visibility encourages a second to form, leading to the previously mentioned problem.

        How about no.

        --
        Offended and laughing about it.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:18PM (14 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:18PM (#1168949)

          I think you miss the point. I'm calling for SN to make it explicit that such content isn't welcome, then to have the admins take an active role in cleaning up the mess instead of punting it to the community. Despite fnord's excuses, it would be very easy to assign unlimited mod points to editors for the purpose of cleaning up racism and other spam. Even when APK posts the same comment tens or hundreds of times, the staff says it's up to the community to clean up the mess. They could easily solve the problem themselves but refuse to do so.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:58PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @06:58PM (#1168965)

            You are pretty free with obligating other people's free time. I don't see it as a problem having the community involved in cleaning things up. One can argue what the best approach for that is, and I'll give you a hint that is not something that has a clear answer as other places like /. and kuro5hin, etc. tried different things. If this place had paid staff, you could try to argue that they should be doing more to take care of X, but it doesn't. So become part of a community and pitch in if you want it better.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:32PM (10 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:32PM (#1169075)

              Did you see all the spam on Ari's post? There is some that is still not marked as spam, which isn't surprising when you only have 10 points and plenty of other things you want to mod up. Fact of the matter is that a systematic spamming effort requires the response of admins one way or another. Asking the people who are charged with keeping the community working to keep the community working doesn't seem like a big ask.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:59PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20 2021, @10:59PM (#1169087)

                They spent all those precious mod points marking Hazu up to 5-Insightful. Puppets — sock or otherwise — aren't free.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:33AM (8 children)

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:33AM (#1169193) Homepage
                > the people who are charged with

                unpack that verb please?
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:24AM (7 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:24AM (#1169231)

                  to charge - to entrust (subject) to carry out (object) as a task, duty, or responsibility.

                  to entrust - to put (object) into the (subject's) care or protection as an act of good faith.

                  Roughly, to word the sentence another way while attempting to keep the structure similar, "Asking the people who had the duty and responsibility of keeping the community working put into their care and protection to carry out as an act of good faith to keep the community working doesn't seem like a big ask."

                  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 22 2021, @05:33AM (6 children)

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 22 2021, @05:33AM (#1169524) Journal

                    Sure, can I quote you a daily or hourly rate or would you prefer to offer me a salaried position? I am currently giving several hours a day (yesterday was 4 hours+) - how much effort are you expending on supporting the site? I don't think that asking the community to help down-mod the spam is too much to expect them them to carry out, but apparently you do.

                    I only have so much time to give. Why would I go back to remove spam from a story that is now closed when there is so much to do today? I have to prioritize each task that I am 'charged' with doing every time I log in here.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @06:36AM (5 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22 2021, @06:36AM (#1169536)

                      This will totally sound like trolling, but Boo-fucking-hoo. If you don't like the responsibility you were given after asking for it, then give it up. As much as I think he was one of the worst people around here, at least TMB was man enough to do so instead of continuing to play pretend or to make excuses for not doing what he said he would do.

                      Would you take a restaurant seriously that leaves shit on the floor? Well, they don't sit anyone in that room anymore so its OK right? Or is it a sign of the larger, systemic problem? Sure, you are all volunteers, so do the job you volunteered for. Why should the restaurant patrons of all people have to clean the feces of the ground? "Hey users, instead of using your points on doing something constructive, spend it doing basic maintenance on the site." Better, "Why don't you volunteer to do the crap I refuse to do because of these important but invisible and unstated "things" I do." Great sell. You all sound like those owners on the restaurant/bar/hotel bail out shows complaining about how they are failing because tried nothing and it isn't working or worse because they are doing everything right but it is the customers that are wrong while they stand apparently idle and their costumers eat contaminated food.

                      Again, you volunteered to do the work it takes to keep this site running and the users trusted you to do it. If you don't want to do that anymore, then be adult enough to quit and not play pretend anymore.

                      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 22 2021, @08:57AM (4 children)

                        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 22 2021, @08:57AM (#1169554) Journal

                        I do accept the responsibility that goes with the job - and I carry out my tasks diligently while I am on site.

                        But do not - EVER - think that I am at your beck and call 24 hours a day. If you don't like the way the site is run, if you think that we do'nt give enough of ourselves to please you - you can leave. As an Anonymous Coward you have made no commitment to this site whatsoever. If you are unhappy then leave, and I will not even notice that you have gone.

                        So to help the site out, go through all the back stories and find every example of spam that you think should have been removed. Go on, I'll wait.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @01:15AM (3 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23 2021, @01:15AM (#1169729)

                          Where did I get anywhere close to saying you are at my beck and call 24/7? You are fencing ghosts. I am saying if a worker at a soup kitchen sees shit on the floor of a restaurant during their shift, they should probably clean it up. That goes whether they are the cook, the server, or the manager. Maybe I'm just old in that regard or don't mind doing what I see as the basics of running an establishment.

                          But let's grant that cleaning up shit isn't your job in particular, which I obviously disagree with based on everything you and the rest of the staff have said combined with the fact they give you superpowers regular users don't have. It should still be somebody's beyond your patrons. But that is apparently a bridge too far since the shit is still on the floor. Add on to that the apparent silence from most of the staff on, well, anything really. For goodness sake, the top 3 people on your Who's Who page are MIA for all appearences. One left completely before having the reasons for doing so censored, one hasn't posted in 7 years and the other in 5 years. 2 out of your 5 devs haven't had activity in over 4 years, 2 left, and the last doesn't speak the necessary language. Sysops? 2 left, 1 admits he has no idea what he is doing, 2 have been gone for at least 3 years, and the one remaining has barely any activity and seems to be doing the best he can given his position in the circumstances.

                          Also, great deflection. "I keep telling people to leave and for some reason people keep leaving!" If the comments of you and FatPhil on this story were mandatory reading, I'd be surprised if anyone new volunteered. Sure, I haven't leashed myself to the site, but why would I or anyone else want to when given such a warm welcome and, as The Mighty Buzzard and NCommander pointed out, it looks like I'd be stuck doing all the work for a site going in the wrong direction because no one else seems to care either. Miss me when I'm gone? Probably not, just like you didn't miss the others who left. But a site with no users isn't much of a site at all. Watch out for the death by a thousand cuts, and by all appearances its already bleeding pretty badly. But maybe your bet that you have enough paying regulars that don't mind watching coprophagic trolls trolling trolls will pay off despite your efforts to drive everyone else off.

                          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 23 2021, @07:27AM (2 children)

                            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 23 2021, @07:27AM (#1169773) Journal

                            Thanks for your response - some interesting points there.

                            You appear to be keeping with the analogy of seeing fecal matter on the restaurant floor but it isn't an accurate analogy. Fecal matter would pose a significant health risk to everybody. The options are strictly limited to remove the fecal matter or close the restaurant. So with limited resources you are proposing that we stop posting new stories while we trawl through the several tens of thousands of old stories looking for items that should have been removed. These are, of course, stories that nobody looks at any longer for the most part. How long would people keep logging in if there are no stories to read? We are trying to improve the site in numerous ways but we have to prioritise each and every task so that we can keep the site running. You were suggesting that I should go and complete a low priority task while there are more important, in fact essential, tasks to be done. I have not got that time to give.

                            However, your analogy falls down because having spam or other undesirable comments still viewable on earlier stories is not a major health risk to our current or prospective members. Potential members rarely go looking back more than a day or two to look at stories that are any older. They do, however, look at current discussions and decide whether they wish to continue to read what the comments offer. I am not saying that we should never clean up older stories but currently that is not the most important task on our plate. Existing members have probably already seen the Spam or maybe they did not bother to read the story because it is a topic that does not interest them.

                            top 3 people on your Who's Who page are MIA for all appearances

                            However, you still do not realise how stretched the entire team is at the moment. Covid-19, changes to work patterns, unemployment, medical issues and deaths of family members have all affected the number of support staff who are available to help the site from day to day.

                            Following on from that is the fact that the Who's Who has not been updated for several years. There are fewer than a handful of people on that list who are still here today. NCommander did write a leaving explanation but he never posted it - I believe that it was released by an editor who did not have the right to do so, and so was quickly withdrawn. In fact, it shouldn't have even been in the stories queue - but rather it belonged in NCommander's journal. TMBs departure has been discussed and, as far as I know, is still available in his journal for those who wish to read it. The remainder simply found that for the reasons I have already given, and some others, they could no longer provide support to the site. The names of team members of those who have said that they might be able to return at some time in the future, and the names of all editors active or otherwise, remain on the list.

                            I will not try to explain where every member on the Who's who is but your assessment is quite wide of the mark. For example, three of the names on the SysOps team are still here and providing support. You do not see their names very often because they have real world obligations and their work goes largely unnoticed by the community, but they do appear in various IRC channels - and are also on MartyB's speed dial list. Who do you think recovered the system when it crashed shortly after TMB's departure? They are busy restructuring all of our servers to ensure that they meet our current needs, that we are not spending money on resources that we do not need, and that everything is fully documented and, where possible, easy to use. The team is not standing still.

                            The site was partly remiss in not trying to fill those gaps quickly but, for a variety of reasons, we did not do so. Finding a Perl programmer who is prepared to commit him/herself to the site is also a difficult task. Some have suggested rewriting the code but who is there to actually take on that task?

                            There has been a shift in our community, or perhaps more correctly how they wish to interact with the site. A much larger proportion of the community now post as Anonymous Cowards. We cannot identify each person to a specific individual but we can associate many of them with their previous activity. This is not big brother stuff, but simply so that we can maintain the site as a functioning entity. Comments have to be related to stories which have to be related to moderations etc. The vast majority of our ACs contribute positively to the site. They make submissions, provide intelligent comments and bring a lot of expertise to the discussions. However, a significant minority do not behave in this way. Nevertheless they are the first to complain about anything that happens in their little world. We have to take every complaint seriously and in many cases it is only the staff who can address the issue which is often the result of another community member moderating them in a way that they did not like, or something equally trivial. We have to look at whatever activity record we can associate with that particular AC - which in many cases is nothing at all. But where we can identify their previous comments and complaints we can perhaps see that this is not the first issue that they have raised and their contribution to the site is negative. Perhaps we should word it more tactfully - and I am guilty as accused in this matter - but when we are fighting to keep on top of the site then it is perhaps only human nature that we will fall short of that expected of us occasionally. I can only apologise, but there are some ACs that the site would be better without.

                            I am currently trying to give 4 hours a day to supporting the site, and over the last 10 days I have exceeded that by a good margin. I have spent over an hour on this response to you and the research that went into it. I hope it answers many of the points that you raised. Unfortunately, those running the site are reaching levels of fatigue that we have not experienced as a team before. I must now go and get ready to face the rest of my day, which will include editing, administration and perhaps finding an improvement or two that will benefit the site without demanding resources that are simply not available. And living my life too.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:00AM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24 2021, @06:00AM (#1170167)

                              I will endeavor to give this the response it deserves, but in the mean time I think two things need to be said to provide you the chance to ponder them in the mean time. The first is that we appear to be talking past each other in regards to the seriousness of the spam I mentioned. Whether that is because we disagree as to the seriousness of spam less than a month old or something else, I think we are missing each other.

                              Second is that appearances matter. I understand there is an IRC where people hang out an staff meets. But at the end of the day, the primary endpoint is the website. You could have staff and users in the IRC posting every 0.5 seconds, but it doesn't matter if the website itself is devoid of activity. Object permanence is very import to consider, especially on the web with its induced amnesia. If you don't see it, it doesn't exist.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 31 2021, @05:08AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 31 2021, @05:08AM (#1172684) Journal
                                I came across this thread rather late.

                                What really are you complaining about? There's no point to complaining about something without providing examples. This is bug reporting 101.
          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 20 2021, @07:39PM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 20 2021, @07:39PM (#1168993) Journal

            it would be very easy to assign unlimited mod points to editors

            https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=44440&page=1&cid=1168990#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:34AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:34AM (#1169127) Journal

            They could easily solve the problem themselves but refuse to do so.

            [Citation needed]
            Keep into account that all editors and admins are volunteering their spare time to do it for no monetary reward. In some instances, they pay this with their health.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:22AM (5 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:22AM (#1169185) Homepage
        > As I noted in another comment

        No you didn't. You're AC, you don't exist. Own your comments with an identity, and we can start discussing whether you did or didn't say something.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @10:27AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @10:27AM (#1169258)

          Soylent makes a point of allowing anonymous posts. If you can't stand that, direct your ire at Soylent itself or shut up.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:14PM (3 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @12:14PM (#1169272) Homepage
            I have no issue with the right to post AC, I have no idea where your twisted brain imagined that concept from. It's the idiocy of ACs thinking that they have an identity that I have a problem with.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 21 2021, @08:09PM (2 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday August 21 2021, @08:09PM (#1169386) Journal

              They kind of do though. I can usually tell when Runaway's posting AC by the word choice, for example, though he makes it a point to use shorter sentences thinking it'll fool people. And Ari's ACs are very obvious, since no one talks quite like he does. There's one who i'm pretty sure is "me 2.0" and another who identified him(?)self through the same specific litany of complaints.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 21 2021, @08:18PM (1 child)

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 21 2021, @08:18PM (#1169390) Homepage
                Thinking that we can't see through the disguise is another separate failing. I agree that you can tell Runaway just from the feel of the whole post, and indeed Ari's unicity distance is about 3 words on average.

                Someone should run some stats over the database - for each iphash that a logged-in account has used, do the AC or non-AC posts get the most up/down moderations?
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:50PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:50PM (#1169404) Journal

                  There is something all the bad-faith trolls have in common: they think they're the smartest person in the room. That arrogance alone is IMO enough reason to smack the taste out of their smirking mouths.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
1 (2) 3 4