Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:10:04 GMT

Hey, people -

I'm finally sitting in Building 18. Even though I haven't done anything beyond getting my parking pass, I feel like just being here gives me the right to ask for your opinions on big topics that could have a major impact on C9.

So...

What do you think about having a /. style moderation system? The problem with the current banning solution to trolling is that it isn't very communityish.

Recently, I allowed myself to get dragged into a long, irritating troll thread. We've seen all the "Don't reply to trolls" posts, but you know how hard it is to do that when someone calls out your integrity in front of the rest of the board.

It'd be nice, then, if we could use post points (I *think* they're implemented here - not sure - would have to talk to Adam) to allot mod points. That way, instead of the C9 team having total say over who is/isn't trolling, you guys can help keep things clean around here by having some control over the environment.

And, yeah - we'd just be stealing this feature directly from /. - but that doesn't bother me - let's just not get mired in a thread about how this feature is unoriginal (not saying that somebody would have come along and argued this, but... well, someone probably would've, and it would've been distracting).

What do you think? I don't even know if it would be possible, as I'm not up to speed on what the new codebase is capable of, but I'd like to see the conversations here improved by leaps and bounds as a result of user moderation.

Eh?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Xaero_Vincent — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:36:08 GMT

I dont like the idea because people will start modding others down based on personal opinion. People will be in fear of getting modded down if they attempt to step out and express their real feelings about a matter.

Regards,
Vincent

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:44:07 GMT

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

I dont like the idea because people will start modding others down based on personal opinion. People will be in fear of getting modded down if they attempt to step out and express their real feelings about a matter.

Regards,
Vincent

I agree that that's a possibility, but I think that the majority of people around here want to have good conversations.

Also, /. implements meta-moderation so that the moderation can be rated.

That might be a bit much, but at least starting out with some kind of ratings system might be good - again, based on someone's posting history.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

DarthVista — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:08:26 GMT

I think this is an idea with some potential. I would extend it further by giving a few people "super abilities", such as the capability of nuking one post of their choice per month, or "extra modding points" power to drive certain posts into oblivion. For instance, if I see one more Gnome thread on here, I'd love to...well...you know...hit the big red "destroy this post" button.

[6]

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

shreyasonline — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:22:09 GMT

No Thank You ! ...

This would give rise to discrimination. It would feel like C9 team have been relocated to China ! (Or may be Iran)

Shreyas Zare

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

shreyasonline — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:24:03 GMT

In a democratic system, problems must be dealt democratically.

Shreyas Zare

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Tommy Carlier — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:41:29 GMT

I haven't made up my mind whether such a system would be good or bad, but if it is implemented, I think it would be a good idea to not allow people to moderate until they have been member for a certain period. Else it would be too easy for people to create a bunch of accounts and start modding down posts.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

petknep_home — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:43:50 GMT

shreyasonline wrote:

In a democratic system, problems must be dealt democratically.

Shreyas Zare

Right now we have a dictatorship (or at best a representative democracy).

Slashdot style moderation is democratic.

Community moderation is power to the people.

A digg style moderation system would be a lot easier that slashdot. You only have to keep a count on the posts, no individual mod points. You can also choose to block specific trolls (yay!).

Most community moderation systems suffer from groupthink and the tyrrany of the majority however. It'd be an interesting experiment though.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

irascian — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:52:29 GMT

Add me to the 'Can't make my mind up on this one' crowd.

I think things have been relatively quiet on the trolling front recently so I'm probably more laid back than I would be if we'd had one of the outbreaks we've had in the past.

My concern is that you'd probably get someone like Darth Vista voted out by the majority, when even though he's a troll he's given me some of the best laughs we've had in a long time on here and I kind of look forward to his posts. I never was one for subtlety

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

shreyasonline — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:53:41 GMT

petknep_home wrote:

Most community moderation systems suffer from groupthink and the tyrrany of the majority however. It'd be an interesting experiment though.

Thata what exactly I am fearing. Such system may create groups say a good group of C9ers and a bad group of trolls and both hiting at each other to take each others post down.

Its like when two people/groups are fighting, giving them *weapons of mass destruction* dont make any sense ! (Sorry, Bush made me habituated with WMD )

Shreyas Zare

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Antitorgo — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:58:15 GMT

Just a thought -- but if we wanted Slashdot or Digg, wouldn't we just go there?

The amount of opinion-based negative moderation that goes on with both those sites means that some interesting posts get modded down because they don't meet the "group ideology" of the site.

How many times have you been frustrated by Slashdot Linux and Mac zealots moderating you down just because you happen to not bash, or heaven forbid be pro Microsoft?

Digg is even worse. Just go look at any of the political opinion boards to see the left-right wingers go nuts.

Is the volume of posts on C9 even high enough to even warrant a moderation system?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:28:48 GMT

Antitorgo wrote:

Just a thought -- but if we wanted Slashdot or Digg, wouldn't we just go there?

Yes - you would.

This isn't about recreating /. or digg.

Look at /. - it isn't a piece of software - it's a community that runs on software that's well designed for a community. The community is what makes /. a strong presence.

There are plenty of sites out there running on slashcode, but they aren't popular because they aren't /. - if it were just a matter software, then those sites ought to be popular too.

Point being, I'm talking about strengthening the community by making the software more community-friendly - not recreating another community here.

Antitorgo wrote:

The amount of opinion-based negative moderation that goes on with both those sites means that some interesting posts get modded down because they don't meet the "group ideology" of the site.

That's partly true, but in my experience, a well thought out comment on /. is likely not to get unfairly modded down. I state in my sig that I work for MS. While this has caused some people to have a problem with me, most seem to be very understanding, and I've had quite a few posts modded up very highly.

The reason the opposing viewpoints often get modded down is that the viewpoint is delivered in the traditionally tactless style of the drive-by forum troll. If you're respectful on /., and if your message is good, it's pretty likely you'll get modded up.

What I'm talking about here, though, isn't a system to rate content as being good or bad - it's really just a troll filter. In other words, let's not mod someone down because they're advancing an opposing viewpoint - let's mod them down because they're insulting people for no reason, or because they're clearly trying to be disruptive.

It's not content control - it's behavior control. Trying to keep things civil around here where it's been demonstrated time and again that some people have a very difficult time doing that.

Antitorgo wrote:

How many times have you been frustrated by Slashdot Linux and Mac zealots moderating you down just because you happen to not bash, or heaven forbid be pro Microsoft?

Like I said, the /. community has been very fair with me, but I think it's because I argue the content rather than the people. I don't sling mud, and I don't pick fights. If someone's dishing out misinformation about MS, then I'll correct them - not in an insulting way, but in a "Hey - somebody told you the wrong thing" kind of way. And it's been very positive.

Antitorgo wrote:

Is the volume of posts on C9 even high enough to even warrant a moderation system?

I think so.

I also think the post volume might increase if we had such a system in place.

I wonder how many people don't want to take part in conversations here because they want to avoid flamewars - or how many have been driven away by making perfectly good points, only to be told that they're shills, zealots, sell-outs, or whatever.

I see this as improving the community and increasing posting volume over time.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:35:12 GMT

irascian wrote:

My concern is that you'd probably get someone like Darth Vista voted out by the majority, when even though he's a troll he's given me some of the best laughs we've had in a long time on here and I kind of look forward to his posts. I never was one for subtlety

I hear you on the DarthVista thing.

I guess that, technically speaking he's trolling, but I like the guy. He's clever and not outright rude - that changes things quite a bit.

Nothing wrong with comic relief.

Hopefully, people like him (OK - just him - there's nobody really like him) wouldn't be voted off the C9 island.

It's a good point, though - I wouldn't want to see the forums lose some "color" because of overzealous moderation.

Still... I'd like to see a way to take some of these threads in which the conversation dies after ten posts, and find a way to keep the main topic alive for two or three times as long, and I don't see another way to do that right now. I'm tired of the ten-on-topic-comments-followed-by-thirty-flames threads.

C9 is better than that, yo. The people here who really want to make this a good place have a hard time doing that because they're getting called out by people who are paranoid, have an agenda, hate MS, or who are just bored.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:49:19 GMT

petknep_home wrote:

Most community moderation systems suffer from groupthink and the tyrrany of the majority however. It'd be an interesting experiment though.

Well... isn't groupthink, to some extent, part of what makes a community?

Not so much thinking in exactly the same direction, but at least being brought together by a set of factors the community members have in common.

Most of us, for example, are here because we're interested in MS in some way. Some of us work for the company, others want to, others don't but would like to see inside, and so on.

That's going to lead to some insularity. It's like joining a Harley club or getting together on poker night. There's that common bond that brings you all together.

It's just the glue, though - as you learn after joining a group, you eventually start having conversations outside the domain of the reason for which the group was created (like the Coffeehouse).

But the initial binding factor is still present - some people wouldn't have met if it weren't for a common interest in Harleys or poker.

Even within the vertical communities that are created by people coming together for a set of very specific reasons, there will be discord among the members over topics of discussion. But, hopefully, that discord remains a difference of opinion, and not the lead-in to three pages of ad-hominem attacks as we've seen here.

There's nothing wrong with dissent - without it, there's actually little reason to continue a conversation. It's what creates the conflict and drama that makes discussion lively. The challenge is to keep the discussions at least remotely on topic, and about the topic rather than becoming mud-slinging exercises in which members post inflammatory vitriole in attempts to derail the conversations.

How do you do that without some kind of a system? The "Please Don't" approach doesn't seem to be working.

Any ideas, anyone? Alternatives are always welcome...

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

blowdart — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:05:30 GMT

Rory wrote:

It's a good point, though - I wouldn't want to see the forums lose some "color" because of overzealous moderation.

Color? -1 spelling.

What I think would be useful is a slightly cut back slashdot moderation; where you can mark comments as spam (and those marked enough they hide from those with the default view), whereas the rest of the options are positive (interesting, insightful, another blowdart post etc.) Perhaps the only other "negative" would be "off topic", where someone posts a technical question in the coffeehouse etc.

Enabling a personal ignore list would be far more useful. *plonk*

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

LaBomba — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:08:10 GMT

I don't know who mentioned it (maybe adam or duncan..) but when you vote to ignore a user their posts aren't completely lost but rather become minimized and you would need to click to expand; to view the post(s) from that user.

So because we agree that darthvista is a troll; albeit an entertaining one. While his posts won't show up by default it's still there for you, if you are looking for a laugh.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Massif — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:44:54 GMT

blowdart wrote:

Rory wrote:
It's a good point, though - I wouldn't want to see the forums lose some "color" because of overzealous moderation.

Color? -1 spelling.

What I think would be useful is a slightly cut back slashdot moderation; where you can mark comments as spam (and those marked enough they hide from those with the default view), whereas the rest of the options are positive (interesting, insightful, another blowdart post etc.) Perhaps the only other "negative" would be "off topic", where someone posts a technical question in the coffeehouse etc.

Enabling a personal ignore list would be far more useful. *plonk*

That is how Americans spell colour you know.

We've had the discussion about ignore lists before haven't we? I thought it was decided that you could get some strange looking conversations because of people ignoring replies.

I would personally opt for a Digg style moderation, so the text of the posts is hidden (and you can opt to read it). But then it's been about five years since I visited /. so I can't remember what they do.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Christian Liensberger — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:49:28 GMT

I don't know whether to like or dislike the idea. I haven't been much on slashdot as I'm no fan of the bashing going on over there... So, please don't recreated a slashdot community here.

We just need a few mods all around the world to ban trolls as they appear. That's everything that is required.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

blowdart — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:52:57 GMT

Massif wrote:

That is how Americans spell colour you know.

ur id="Massif" status="TooEarlyInTheMorning" />

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Massif — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:14:58 GMT

Indeed. It's only 9:15 and I've been away three hours.

I'm not scheduled to actually wake up until about 6 pm. It's a shame about all this "work" I'm supposed to do in the meantime.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Tensor — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:28:07 GMT

Dunno. /. moddign works partly ebcause there are 10s of thouseands of readers. C9 Coffeehouse doesnt have that.

Something needs to be done - but then, something has needed to be done for a couple of years and it hasnt. It has been better recently but its only a matter of time before we go through another wave of trolling. I allways just wanted an "ignore this user" button. I have a mental list of people I would apply it to allready.

Personally, If I could vote on what feature I want most - been able to post from my windows mobile device comes waaaay above community moderation.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:53:30 GMT

littleguru wrote:

I don't know whether to like or dislike the idea. I haven't been much on slashdot as I'm no fan of the bashing going on over there... So, please don't recreated a slashdot community here.

Again, I wasn't suggesting that we recreate /. here. There's no point to that.

I'm saying that we need to steal a feature of their software for use over here.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Rory — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:55:18 GMT

Massif wrote:

We've had the discussion about ignore lists before haven't we? I thought it was decided that you could get some strange looking conversations because of people ignoring replies.

Yeah... the problem with ignoring is that you'll still see posts from the user mingled in with the thread - you just won't see posts directly from the user you're ignoring.

It can make things a bit strange.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

shreyasonline — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:44:44 GMT

Rory wrote:

Massif wrote:
We've had the discussion about ignore lists before haven't we? I thought it was decided that you could get some strange looking conversations because of people ignoring replies.

Yeah... the problem with ignoring is that you'll still see posts from the user mingled in with the thread - you just won't see posts directly from the user you're ignoring.

It can make things a bit strange.

"Ignore This Thread" would be better. Here only the SPAM/Racist like threads can be ignored instead of ignoring the user(s) totally.

Shreyas Zare

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Christian Liensberger — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:17:04 GMT

Rory wrote:

Massif wrote:
We've had the discussion about ignore lists before haven't we? I thought it was decided that you could get some strange looking conversations because of people ignoring replies.

Yeah... the problem with ignoring is that you'll still see posts from the user mingled in with the thread - you just won't see posts directly from the user you're ignoring.

It can make things a bit strange.

OK. Well I'm not very often on /. - If the thing works great, it should be adopted, but modified to fit our requirements...

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

WBurggraaf — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:15:55 GMT

You have my blessing. In other community's we are using this for years and works fine.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

harumscarum — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:30:50 GMT

Tensor wrote:

Dunno. /. moddign works partly ebcause there are 10s of thouseands of readers. C9 Coffeehouse doesnt have that.

Thats what I was thinking. It doesn't make much sense to me to implement it here in the coffeehouse. I would much rather have control on what threads I see on the first page.

Don't reply to trolls and don't be so insecure. I actually find it funny on how infatuated some people are with the more legendary trolls that used to be here.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

David Oliver — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:01:43 GMT

Ok, I don't hang out on /. , just here and some dull architecture forums that trolls don't visit.

So could someone describe in detail the purposed feature please?

Cheers ...

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Minh — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:20:13 GMT

Oh, god, so you're gonna put W3bbo in charge?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

jsampsonPC — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:56:21 GMT

You guys are failing to realize something very crucial. That being, many of the known trolls here at c9 probably have 2 or more accounts, which gives them 2 or more times as much voting power as any non-troll.

Before you can implement this modding-system, you've got to figure out a way to keep people from spawning new accounts whenever they feel like it. Maybe this is where a probation period comes in?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

DarthVista — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:11:45 GMT

I agree. This place should be locked down so tight that it's ridiculous. The cleaner the signal the better, and all dissenting opinions should be squashed. I will gladly sign up for Vista patrol duties, for my loyalty is aligned with the state.

The Vista state, that is.

btw, I'm widening the partitions on one of my hard drives in preparation for the long-awaited arrival of the 12th version of Office. Surely, this will bring about the end of the OpenOffice world.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

CodeMonkey666 — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:15:15 GMT

I think some sort of karma system would help a lot.

I’m not hip on the digg system since it is prone to flash mob gamming of the system.

On the other note I don’t like the idea of MS zealots nuking topics of dissenting viewpoints that are being discussed. There has been a lot of good progress to get away from the old MS “not made here” mentality.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

AndyC — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:23:31 GMT

CodeMonkey666 wrote:

On the other note I don’t like the idea of MS zealots nuking topics of dissenting viewpoints that are being discussed.

Are there that many though? I mean, aside from the ridiculous parody that is Darth Vista, I wouldn't say there was anyone totally incapable of seeing value elsewhere.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Cornelius Ellsonpeter — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:39:03 GMT

Rory wrote:

What do you think about having a /. style moderation system? The problem with the current banning solution to trolling is that it isn't very communityish.

And, it never seems to be a permanent solution.

Rory wrote:

Recently, I allowed myself to get dragged into a long, irritating troll thread. We've seen all the "Don't reply to trolls" posts, but you know how hard it is to do that when someone calls out your integrity in front of the rest of the board.

I think we all have been through this. Over and over. And over, and...

Rory wrote:

It'd be nice, then, if we could use post points (I *think* they're implemented here - not sure - would have to talk to Adam) to allot mod points. That way, instead of the C9 team having total say over who is/isn't trolling, you guys can help keep things clean around here by having some control over the environment.

That would be nice, and I would vote for that.

The trolls have been pretty quiet lately, though. Odd...maybe they finally just gave up?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Tommy Carlier — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:48:46 GMT

I first thought that DarthVista was just an idiot, but now I think he's brilliant. If you don't take his posts serious, you will find out they can be quite funny. Thank you, Darth.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

me — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:14 GMT

i dont know about rating users... (as that's what it sounds like)...

how about a new small button above post window of a red flag.

if enough people hit the red flag ( say over 20) a thread is locked - or forwarded to a c9team moderator - and any user that gets over 8 locked threads is banned or something

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Jason Olson — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:15:34 GMT

shreyasonline wrote:

"Ignore This Thread" would be better. Here only the SPAM/Racist like threads can be ignored instead of ignoring the user(s) totally.

Shreyas Zare

But the problem for me isn't ignoring complete threads. The problem is the "hijacked" threads that were perfectly valuable until trolls bring them down into flame wars. I want those threads (and any other) to live longer by content management of the thread itself. Simply ignoring threads wouldn't suffice for me because then a perfectly valuable thread would be gone simply because of trolling.

blowdart wrote:

What I think would be useful is a slightly cut back slashdot moderation; where you can mark comments as spam (and those marked enough they hide from those with the default view), whereas the rest of the options are positive (interesting, insightful, another blowdart post etc.) Perhaps the only other "negative" would be "off topic", where someone posts a technical question in the coffeehouse etc.

I like this idea. Of course, I also like the more complete /. idea. I'm for anything that lets the community moderate itself and will help contribute to threads living longer, remaining on topic, and discouraging trolls.

To do this though, I agree with jsampsonPC that you would need to find a way to prevent trolls from merely creating 10 different accounts and voting themselves up. OTOH, maybe this could be accomplished by weighting the various values. Meaning, a "SPAM" vote would only be negated by five "Interesting" votes or something like that. But my fear with that (talking to myself here ) would be that anyone who posts about a good "opposing" feature could be bashed into oblivion by someone like DarthVista (I love ya' man, but I don't want your prevalent "message" becoming all we see on C9, sorry). I for one like the opposing opinions and viewpoints.

Regardless of all that though, I think _some_ kind of community-based moderation would be a good thing. If the C9 community is moderating itself, it's merely one less argument that MS is tightly controlling the content here to push its own agenda (why do I fear that a troll is going to pick up that comment and derail this thread ).

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Erik Porter — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:34:27 GMT

shreyasonline wrote:

Rory wrote:

Massif wrote:
We've had the discussion about ignore lists before haven't we? I thought it was decided that you could get some strange looking conversations because of people ignoring replies.

Yeah... the problem with ignoring is that you'll still see posts from the user mingled in with the thread - you just won't see posts directly from the user you're ignoring.

It can make things a bit strange.

"Ignore This Thread" would be better. Here only the SPAM/Racist like threads can be ignored instead of ignoring the user(s) totally.

Shreyas Zare

Ignore this thread is something we've been thinking about for a while. We need a really good way to do this and need to think about it, but we believe it would be useful.

LaBomba wrote:

I don't know who mentioned it (maybe adam or duncan..) but when you vote to ignore a user their posts aren't completely lost but rather become minimized and you would need to click to expand; to view the post(s) from that user.
So because we agree that darthvista is a troll; albeit an entertaining one. While his posts won't show up by default it's still there for you, if you are looking for a laugh.

This is basically what we're thinking. But thanks to Rory spawning this thread, it helped refine the idea (at least in my head) a bit.

So how I'm picturing it as a feature where you can say "ignore user". That is ALWAYS is applied to conversations and shows their posts grayed out, but you can click expand if you REALLY must see what they're saying. Then, the number of ignores is tallied per user that then fits into a rating (0 through 9 maybe? ). Users can then opt in for how high of a rating they want to ignore, so then their ignore list becomes a combination of who they think should be ignored, combined with who the community thinks should be ignored. And if there's a lot of abuse to that system, people will most likely just opt out. So the true control is there for each individual user, while giving the community control as well, but still up to each person on how much "advice" to take from the community.

What do you all think?

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Jason Olson — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:15:29 GMT

My concern is that when I noticed increases in troll-like activity, it wasn't the increase of trolling threads that was the problem. The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.

My concern with just collapsing the reply from just the troll, is that subsequent replies to that troll from people I don't want to ignore would potentially have them quoting the troll. I would much rather have a system where it can be moderated to the point that not only the troll's reply, but everyone falling for the bait and replying to the troll would also go away (be hidden). That way, the thread remains valuable as it remains as close to "pure signal" as you can get. My hope would be, in turn, that threads would stay alive longer as they aren't derailed into oblivion.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Erik Porter — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:49:16 GMT

JasonOlson wrote:

My concern is that when I noticed increases in troll-like activity, it wasn't the increase of trolling threads that was the problem. The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.

Ignoring at the thread level is completely up to you and on a thread by thread basis and unrelated to ignoring users.

JasonOlson wrote:

My concern with just collapsing the reply from just the troll, is that subsequent replies to that troll from people I don't want to ignore would potentially have them quoting the troll. I would much rather have a system where it can be moderated to the point that not only the troll's reply, but everyone falling for the bait and replying to the troll would also go away (be hidden). That way, the thread remains valuable as it remains as close to "pure signal" as you can get. My hope would be, in turn, that threads would stay alive longer as they aren't derailed into oblivion.

This is exactly what we're planning. You'll have to wait until Adam posts the the screenshots, but the idea is and ignored comment by someone on your ignore list shows up as grayed out and only has an "expand this comments" link and the user's name. You will not be able to see what happens beneath that comment unless you explicitly click on the expand link.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

rjdohnert — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:24:30 GMT

I have mixed opinions about it. In some ways I like it, others I dont. But when trying to keep trolls like DarthVista, FDisk and others from ruining the forums. I also like OSNews style of moderation and would be much more in favor of that. The threshold, where a user visibility is based on his score, where basically if he trolls too much he goes into negative numbers and is not visible based on the readers settings.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Jason Olson — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:37:16 GMT

HumanCompiler wrote:

JasonOlson wrote: My concern is that when I noticed increases in troll-like activity, it wasn't the increase of trolling threads that was the problem. The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.

Ignoring at the thread level is completely up to you and on a thread by thread basis and unrelated to ignoring users.

JasonOlson wrote:
My concern with just collapsing the reply from just the troll, is that subsequent replies to that troll from people I don't want to ignore would potentially have them quoting the troll. I would much rather have a system where it can be moderated to the point that not only the troll's reply, but everyone falling for the bait and replying to the troll would also go away (be hidden). That way, the thread remains valuable as it remains as close to "pure signal" as you can get. My hope would be, in turn, that threads would stay alive longer as they aren't derailed into oblivion.

This is exactly what we're planning. You'll have to wait until Adam posts the the screenshots, but the idea is and ignored comment by someone on your ignore list shows up as grayed out and only has an "expand this comments" link and the user's name. You will not be able to see what happens beneath that comment unless you explicitly click on the expand link.

Ahhh. If that's the case, it sounds good to me .

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

kettch — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:41:40 GMT

JasonOlson wrote:

The greater problem was hijacked threads. I would hate to see those threads locked when the threads themselves are usually valuable (and just degrade off-topic because of the trolling). So, I don't like the idea of moderating at the thread level.

What about the ability to ban a specific user from a thread? That way a person, or persons, can be removed from a thread if they are dragging it down. Their previous posts in that thread would remain, but they would not be able to create any more. Then (hopefully) the thread might be able to get back on track. They would still be allowed to post elsewhere, though.

Whether this is better done by moderators, or by a "kick vote", I'm not quite sure yet.

Edit: Their previous posts in the thread should be uneditable as well.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

raymond — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:03:35 GMT

Favor ignoring trolls, posts, threads, videos, and whatever does not interest you.

Oppose moderation of forums.

Favor representative republics.

Oppose democracy.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
~Thomas Jefferson

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

ronin1855 — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:55:19 GMT

I for one welcome our mod point awarding overlords. Also, I think there is a little FUD going on about community based modding. It isn't that bad is it? Sure it can be abused, but so can most systems, but it allows for feedback & more granualar moderation.

Coffeehouse - Slashdot style moderation?

Oberon — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:00:14 GMT

I think the main reason /. needs the moderation system it has is because of the volume of posts. When a single topic can generate over 500 posts, it becomes impossible to read every response unless someone is paying you to do it full time. You have to have some system to help people decide what is worth reading.

The problem with their system is, as others have pointed out, that people end up modding down posts just because they disagree with what was said. When I used to read slashdot regularly, it was common for anyone who posted a comment critical of Linux or supportive of Microsoft to get modded down as a troll. But if you were pro-open source, pro-Linux, anti-Windows, anti-Microsoft you could get away with making insulting , inflammatory posts. There was a huge double standard. That was one of the things that made me stop reading Slashdot. Maybe things are better now. But I doubt it.

I would vote to stay away from Slashdot style moderation, unless your goal is to eliminate unpopular opinions.