Announcements
30 Sep 04
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, so given that "that is that", and that there are "tools to check for abuse", does this mean that these tools Russ speaks of are automatically run, or do they have to be initiated by a complaint or appeal? If the latter, how are complaints or appeals to be sent to the proper authority (and who is the proper authority, Russ or the moderators)?
From Russ' first post, I get the impression there will be NO appeal process. To wit:
If your post is hidden, then you have no individual moderator to blame – the forum is self-regulating, and if sufficient number of subscribing members’ believes your post is inappropriate, then that is that.
"That is that"
Am I wrong?
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by RussThis is a good idea.
If a post receives [b]n alerts, it will be hidden.
-Russ[/b]
However it will only work if enough suscribers visit the forums in order to be able to make n large enough to be representative.
If n is under let's say 30 the system is liable to be abused but if it is over 30 I'm not sure anything would get hidden at all.
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it was implemented this way then the number of alerts would have to be shown as well as the number of recommendations for fairness sake. It'd be hard to evaluate whether a post is worth a rec or not, ie: if I mildly agreed with the viewpoints and found it not at all offensive, then, if it was one alert shy of being hidden, then I would probably recommend it.
...but the number of alerts have to be n more than the number of recs; I think this would be better than the system implemented here. I fear that a small number of aggressive alerters will be able to tailor the content of the Forums to their wishes even though they are unrepresentative of the community.
Apart from all that, I think we are all jumping the gun a little bit. Russ has implemented a new system, and before we even see the consequences of it, we're bitchin. As he stated, its an experimental system, and if it turns out it needs modications, then well and good, but we shouldn't be saying it needs to be changed before we even see how it works. Lets see how it goes for a few days.
D
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by RagnorakIf Russ didn't want opinions on the system, he would have simply announced it and closed the thread as he has on other occasions. I'm not "bitchin"; I'm offering my opinion as to whether the system implemented is a good one and how it could be made better in my view. I kinda resent everytime someone makes a suggestion, somebody else complaining about their complaining! If you think my ideas are stupid say so, but don't bitch about my bitchin!
If it was implemented this way then the number of alerts would have to be shown as well as the number of recommendations for fairness sake. It'd be hard to evaluate whether a post is worth a rec or not, ie: if I mildly agreed with the viewpoints and found it not at all offensive, then, if it was one alert shy of being hidden, then I would probably recomme ...[text shortened]... needs to be changed before we even see how it works. Lets see how it goes for a few days.
D
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderOTOH, having rec's subtract from the number of alerts would any sizable group of subscribers to effectively prevent almost anything from being moderated by habitually combing the forums and recommending any offensive posts. Not only would this render moderation ineffective, it would also convert the recommended posts list from a collection of interesting posts to a collection of borderline ones.
Ravello pointed out that there are other sites with similiar systems, but the number of alerts have to be n more than the number of recs; I think this would be better than the system implemented here. I fear that a small number of aggressive alerters will be able to tailor the content of the Forums to their wishes even though they are unrepresentative of the community.
I think that appropriate selection of n will lead to a better forum situation.
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by richjohnsonI don't see why your hypothetical "sizeable group of subscribers who don't want almost anything moderated" opinions are less worthy of respect than my hypothetical(?) "small group of subscribers who find things offensive that most people don't" are. What's "offensive" of course is a subjective matter and if most people on the site don't find something offensive, why should it be moderated because of the feelings of a few? An "unalert" button would be just as effective as the "rec" button; I was just incorporating my suggestion into the existing options as this system was.
OTOH, having rec's subtract from the number of alerts would any sizable group of subscribers to effectively prevent almost anything from being moderated by habitually combing the forums and recommending any offensive posts. Not only would this render moderation ineffective, it would also convert the recommended posts list from a collection of interesti ...[text shortened]... line ones.
I think that appropriate selection of n will lead to a better forum situation.
30 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderProper selection of n would prevent a 'small' group from censoring posts. If relatively benign posts are being removed, I trust that Russ will increase the value of n.
I don't see why your hypothetical "sizeable group of subscribers who don't want almost anything moderated" opinions are less worthy of respect than my hypothetical(?) "small group of subscribers who find things offensive t ...[text shortened]... rating my suggestion into the existing options as this system was.
In any event, it will take some time before enough people can alert a post for it to be removed. If someone strongly agrees with a post, they can always reply and quote it, or make a similar post of their own. Also, the original poster can always post again (hopefully they will be savvy enough to replace any foul language with @#^&*%@ or the like).
I just think that an "unalert" button would encourage more of the "us" vs "them" stuff that has been filling the forums with crap lately.
30 Sep 04
I am very hurt. Someone deleted my village of redhotpawnia, which was just an innocent approach to rhp being a global village. I don't understand why someone would do that. there was nothing sexual about it. there was no bad language. It was just fun. The only thing I can think is that someone did it because they don't like me. I won't post ijn the forums any more. I may leave rhp. Maybe I am bveing childish, but it hurts.
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by elvendreamgirl
I am very hurt. Someone deleted my village of redhotpawnia, which was just an innocent approach to rhp being a global village. I don't understand why someone would do that. there was nothing sexual about it. there was no bad language. It was just fun. The only thing I can think is that someone did it because they don't like me. I won't post ijn the forums any more. I may leave rhp. Maybe I am bveing childish, but it hurts.
That is very bizarre. I just did a search for it and everything. It's gone.
I'd message Russ on this one, seems to be a special case where maybe the new system had a bug or something. Also, why in the hell would the ENTIRE thread be gone?? If this is going to work, it shouldn't automatically delete every reply to a reported thread, maybe just the box with that person's text in the replies.
Elvendreamgirl, I'm sorry to see that happened. It was a good thread. Maybe it really was just a bug instead of somebody out to get you. ALSO, a person should not be able to report the same thread more than once.
-f
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by fierceIt's back. It was apparently accidentally kicked to the last page of the General Forums during the down time today but has been returned to page one.
That is very bizarre. I just did a search for it and everything. It's gone.
I'd message Russ on this one, seems to be a special case where maybe the new system had a bug or something. Also, why in the hell would the ENTIRE thread be gone?? If this is going to work, it shouldn't automatically delete every reply to a reported thread, maybe just the ...[text shortened]... to get you. ALSO, a person should not be able to report the same thread more than once.
-f
30 Sep 04
Originally posted by richjohnsonYou hypothesize that if relatively benign posts are being removed, then Russ will increase the value of n. Suppose that is right, and we are left with n+x as the number of alerts sufficient to remove a post. Further, suppose that at this value, sarcastic comments are removed, or arguments against a religious belief are removed, or pro-choice arguments are removed. Now, should Russ increase the previously established value yet again? If so, why? Where does the this process of increasing the value of n end? Apparently, it ends when Russ determines that the posts being removed are offensive enough to warrant removal. What we see, then, is that what is being sold as community-governed moderation is, in fact, grounded in Russ's own value judgements. This might not be a bad thing, but it shouldn't be construed as communitarian in any way.
Proper selection of n would prevent a 'small' group from censoring posts. If relatively benign posts are being removed, I trust that Russ will increase the value of n.
In any event, it will take some time before enough people can alert a post for it to be removed. If someone strongly agrees with a post, they can always reply and quote it, or mak ...[text shortened]... ncourage more of the "us" vs "them" stuff that has been filling the forums with crap lately.
01 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrAny way you slice it, moderation is going to have a subjective element. Just because Russ has the power to alter the value of n doesn't mean that the system is not "communitarian in any way." Other posters still need to alert posts for them to be removed, so there is at least a partial communitarian element.
You hypothesize that if relatively benign posts are being removed, then Russ will increase the value of n. Suppose that is right, and we are left with n+x as the number of alerts sufficient to remove a post. Further, suppose that at this value, sarcastic comments are removed, or arguments against a religious belief are removed, or pro-choice arguments are re ...[text shortened]... . This might not be a bad thing, but it shouldn't be construed as communitarian in any way.