Topic: [SERIOUS] User-style moderation
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #14,853
So, I kind of have an idea for a moderation system which could potentially be pretty effective. The idea is that the majority of the moderation will be done by the users through a voting system. The parts where the actual moderation team (Which definitely should stay) would kick in would be explicit rule breaking, which would require more strictly defined rules.
Users should be able to change their vote at any time, even after the results (Read on to see how I suggest dealing with deletes).
For this to be immune to most types of attacks users would require an X amount of posts and an X amount of days since account creation before their account will be eligible to vote.
Deletes should be rehashed, deleted replies should be hidden as the current TinyBBS system http://i.imgur.com/F4rD4.png (http://i.imgur.com/fTvvr.png), modified appropriately.
Deleted topics could be displayed in-line, or having their visibility toggled with a button on the topics pages with some javascript.
Images would stay in user-decided deletes, unless the users voted for an image delete (Which they can vote for separately from a regular delete)
Moderators will be be able to instantly delete (Completely remove) for rule-breaking (e.g. illegal content), which also removes the image.
Users should be able to vote for hiding (deleting) topics/replies, deleting the image associated to a topic/reply, and locking a topic.
The way I imagine the voting system to work is that every user can positively/negatively vote on each of the subjects (So there are three votes in total in which the user can participate). One positive vote will counteract one negative vote, and the vote can go into the negatives (So people who like a topic/reply can ensure that it stays safe by voting positively on all three subjects, which could be simplified with a Like-ish button)
What do you guys think? Feel free to suggest or improve upon.
Users should be able to change their vote at any time, even after the results (Read on to see how I suggest dealing with deletes).
For this to be immune to most types of attacks users would require an X amount of posts and an X amount of days since account creation before their account will be eligible to vote.
Deletes should be rehashed, deleted replies should be hidden as the current TinyBBS system http://i.imgur.com/F4rD4.png (http://i.imgur.com/fTvvr.png), modified appropriately.
Deleted topics could be displayed in-line, or having their visibility toggled with a button on the topics pages with some javascript.
Images would stay in user-decided deletes, unless the users voted for an image delete (Which they can vote for separately from a regular delete)
Moderators will be be able to instantly delete (Completely remove) for rule-breaking (e.g. illegal content), which also removes the image.
Users should be able to vote for hiding (deleting) topics/replies, deleting the image associated to a topic/reply, and locking a topic.
The way I imagine the voting system to work is that every user can positively/negatively vote on each of the subjects (So there are three votes in total in which the user can participate). One positive vote will counteract one negative vote, and the vote can go into the negatives (So people who like a topic/reply can ensure that it stays safe by voting positively on all three subjects, which could be simplified with a Like-ish button)
What do you guys think? Feel free to suggest or improve upon.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #261,688
Nah. The current system works fine. Besides, that system would be very vulnerable to abuse/bias.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,689
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Nah. The current system works fine. Besides, your system would be very vulnerable to abuse/bias.
> Nah. The current system works fine. Besides, your system would be very vulnerable to abuse/bias.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,690
Forgot to mention in OP that the amount of votes required for an action should be determined by the amount of active vote-eligible accounts, which could prove challenging.
Also the weight of positive votes could be adjusted so that it will require more people to wish for a delete than people who wish for it to stay.
Also the weight of positive votes could be adjusted so that it will require more people to wish for a delete than people who wish for it to stay.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,694
@261,688 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
How would it be open to abuse? I thought the post/time requirements would force it down a bit. A stricter account policy would help, though.
How would it be open to abuse? I thought the post/time requirements would force it down a bit. A stricter account policy would help, though.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,695
I would rather posts be removed only because they break rules, not because they are "unpopular".
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,698
@previous (D)
See that they'd only be hidden from view, and still entirely visible to anyone (With maybe a possibility to always enable show-everything mode?)
See that they'd only be hidden from view, and still entirely visible to anyone (With maybe a possibility to always enable show-everything mode?)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,699
@previous (A)
That would be okay, i guess. On YouTube hidden comments actually get my attention more than comments that aren't hidden.
That would be okay, i guess. On YouTube hidden comments actually get my attention more than comments that aren't hidden.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,701
@261,690 (A)
Eh, I'm still not sure. You'd still get cases where the bias or whims of the masses could unfairly sanction a legit post.
@261,694 (A)
Sure post requirements would lower the amount of fuck-ups a bit, but there are quite a few regulars here who have moments where they decide to go nuts.
Eh, I'm still not sure. You'd still get cases where the bias or whims of the masses could unfairly sanction a legit post.
@261,694 (A)
Sure post requirements would lower the amount of fuck-ups a bit, but there are quite a few regulars here who have moments where they decide to go nuts.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,703
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Eh, I'm still not sure. You'd still get cases where the bias or whims of the masses could unfairly sanction a legit post.
True, that's the unfortunate risk of this system.
> Sure post requirements would lower the amount of fuck-ups a bit, but there are quite a few regulars here who have moments where they decide to go nuts.
What do you mean with go nuts?
> Eh, I'm still not sure. You'd still get cases where the bias or whims of the masses could unfairly sanction a legit post.
True, that's the unfortunate risk of this system.
> Sure post requirements would lower the amount of fuck-ups a bit, but there are quite a few regulars here who have moments where they decide to go nuts.
What do you mean with go nuts?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,705
Why not implement a public mod log (like GHOUL's and F2BBS') along with this new moderation style?
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,707
upvote
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,708
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,711
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,713
@261,703 (A)
> what do you mean by go nuts?
Maybe go nuts was a bit strong. Basically just messing around, like when somebody posts an unpopular opinion and they decide to mess with them.
> what do you mean by go nuts?
Maybe go nuts was a bit strong. Basically just messing around, like when somebody posts an unpopular opinion and they decide to mess with them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,714
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,716
Or we could just leave things alone.Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,717
can we have MiniReddit nao plz?
k thx
k thx
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,718
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,722
@261,713 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Oh, very true but that'd just be one vote. I guess that counting positive votes more than negative votes would solve that problem. Imagine the following criteria:
* For a vote to be eligible to pass, there have to be 7 total votes at least (Look around some polls, its a fair number)
* For a vote to pass once it's eligible, there need to be 1.75 times more negative votes than positive votes (Rounded appropriately).
Then once 3 people have voted positively it would require 5 other people to vote negatively for the action to take place.
Oh, very true but that'd just be one vote. I guess that counting positive votes more than negative votes would solve that problem. Imagine the following criteria:
* For a vote to be eligible to pass, there have to be 7 total votes at least (Look around some polls, its a fair number)
* For a vote to pass once it's eligible, there need to be 1.75 times more negative votes than positive votes (Rounded appropriately).
Then once 3 people have voted positively it would require 5 other people to vote negatively for the action to take place.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,723
@261,718 (B)
A good idea, but could be problematic with people posting illegal content in a no-bump marked topic once it's off the frontpage. Could easily slip past the staff's fingers that way.
A good idea, but could be problematic with people posting illegal content in a no-bump marked topic once it's off the frontpage. Could easily slip past the staff's fingers that way.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,724
@previous (A)
> implying the staff can't easily view all content uploaded to the site on a simple easy to use webpage
> implying the staff can't easily view all content uploaded to the site on a simple easy to use webpage
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,725
@previous (E)
I don't think that's the case but it would be a possible solution, yes. The downside is that it would require extra work on the staff's side than just browsing the site as they normally would.
I don't think that's the case but it would be a possible solution, yes. The downside is that it would require extra work on the staff's side than just browsing the site as they normally would.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,726
@previous (A)
your're wrong
that is the case
looking at a grid of the last 100 uploaded images every once in a while is not really that much work
you have no idea what you are talking about
your're wrong
that is the case
looking at a grid of the last 100 uploaded images every once in a while is not really that much work
you have no idea what you are talking about
r04r (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,727
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,728
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,729
This might work, but only if we required users to sign up and allowed them to create their own small communities based on a subject, some being incredibly popular for being angry autistics and the others popular for stealing from 4chan.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,730
@261,718 (B)
I can't see the point of it. If you feel that a topic is worth replying to then why would you want to hide the fact that you posted?
@261,722 (A)
That'd balance it out. But again, you'd still get instances of abuse. Honestly I don't see much need for a new system. All this would really do is result in a number of hidden replies that would get specific attention, since most people would un-hide it to see what it was.
The other obvious benefit of your system is that the community could really self-moderate and get rid of crap quickly. Even so, they'd still have to get past the negative vote threshold first, whereas one mod can just get rid of it instantly, and from what I've seen mods are usually around to catch stuff quickly anyway.
@previous (H)
lolreddit
I can't see the point of it. If you feel that a topic is worth replying to then why would you want to hide the fact that you posted?
@261,722 (A)
That'd balance it out. But again, you'd still get instances of abuse. Honestly I don't see much need for a new system. All this would really do is result in a number of hidden replies that would get specific attention, since most people would un-hide it to see what it was.
The other obvious benefit of your system is that the community could really self-moderate and get rid of crap quickly. Even so, they'd still have to get past the negative vote threshold first, whereas one mod can just get rid of it instantly, and from what I've seen mods are usually around to catch stuff quickly anyway.
@previous (H)
lolreddit
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,731
A feature to hide posts on an already comatose forum? Sounds like a great idea.
No, really. It does.
No, really. It does.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,732
I'm a little confused. Will "deleted" threads/replies actually be deleted, or just hidden from view like Reddit?
People will just downvote things they disagree with and you'd soon find topics and replies that express unpopular opinion being deleted, which would suck.
People will just downvote things they disagree with and you'd soon find topics and replies that express unpopular opinion being deleted, which would suck.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,733
@previous (F)
> replies that express unpopular opinion being deleted, which would suck.
Nothing much would change, as this already happens quite frequently.
> replies that express unpopular opinion being deleted, which would suck.
Nothing much would change, as this already happens quite frequently.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #261,741
Yes.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,759
dreamworks !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,760
so basically just like reddit
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,761
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,763
Green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #261,765
Do not want.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #261,773
I am serious.