Total Posts:177|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moderation Solutions - Official

RyanN
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 12:57:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This thread is an extension of this discussion >> http://www.debate.org...

I appreciate the feedback provided regarding moderation issues and preferences.

Those who have served the role of Moderator in an online community have experienced the challenges of the job – no-win, often political, conflict resolution situations abound. A well-intentioned moderator can quickly become demonized – disrespected and underappreciated.

I am more than willing to invest the resources of a team member of our company to fulfill the role because I feel it is important for the community; however, I believe there may be a better solution. I am interested to learn what members of the community feel about the pros and cons of the following concept.

The moderation solution would comprise of a streamlined process integrating community feedback, an existing technology developed by Juggle.com and unbiased, third party moderators. Moderation, in whatever form, needs to be timely and consistent (unbiased).

To start, the community would first need to revise the existing user conduct guidelines… they need to be clear, simple and concise

The moderation solution I propose leverages a blend of community moderation, technology and third party decision makers. The system would work as follows:

1. Community members use the "report post" feature to flag post that violate community guidelines (not sure if this feature works in its present form or if this feature is presently used for moderation purposes… if not, clearly we will change that).

2. The "flagged" post is dynamically shipped off to ScalableWorkforce.com (a company owned by Juggle) where qualified, unbiased moderators will review the post (and community guidelines) to make a moderation decision. Given the high volume, scalable nature of the Scalable Workforce system, these tasks are cost-effective for us to delegate making it affordable to assign each "flagged post" to 3 moderators… each to review and moderate independently from each other (which ensure quality and consistency of decisions). The majority decision that results from the three moderators would determine whether a post is removed from a thread. If a system like this were to be implemented, the community can discuss and determine how many "violations" a user is allowed before being temporarily blocked or permanently banned from the site.

I find value in this system for several reasons…

1. It empowers the community to self police without corruption

2. The technology can be seamlessly integrated into the community and offers customizable features to meet DDO's unique needs. For example, the solution enables us to set thresholds for the number of times a post needs to be flagged before it is shipped off for review. The system is also "smart" in that if a user reports another user's post for a violation (and it is determined NOT to be a violation) the system will "discount" accusing user's future reports if it occurs on a regular basis (this has proven to greatly reduce false accusations).

3. This solution removes our company from becoming embroiled in community squabbles so we can remain unbiased allowing us to focus our resources towards engaging the community to learn about platform problems and feature needs. Please do not mistake "conduct moderation" with that of administration duties. Moderation determines user conduct violations while administration issues such as trouble tickets, lost passwords, new feature requests, etc will all flow through our company.

4. The Scalable Workforce platform is built on top of Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. We have "qualified" 200 people to serve as moderators. These people have taken and passed a test we provided and over time have proven to be competent, logical and accurate when faced with moderation tasks. The system has worked well within other community moderation use cases because decisions are unbiased and based solely on the wording of the community guidelines. Moderators review the context of the post and compare the post to the clear and concise user guidelines set forth by the community. Moderators DO NOT know which community the post was derived nor will they know the user name of the user. This "black box" scenario removes all bias from their decision making – focus is placed purely on whether the post meets the guidelines set forth. The system has also proven ultra responsive due to the number of people we have qualified for the role.

5. When humans are involved with decision making quality control is often an issue. The platform has built in quality control safeguards… such as flagging and manually reviewing the decisions by moderators that consistently fail to agree with the majority. Given clear and concise guidelines decisions are usually black and white – few decisions require deep interpretation.

There are pros and cons to every solution so I appreciate constructive feedback about this proposed form of moderation. Will a system like this work and provide value for the community?

The Scalable Workforce concept may be confusing for those unfamiliar (unfortunately, I have never been mistaken for a scholar when it comes to explaining concepts adequately... actually, the more I think about it, I have never been mistaken for a scholar under any circumstances).

I am happy to answer questions about this proposed solution publically or via PM.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:14:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:12:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
Very well. Remember to exclude any opinions of the members here when it comes to reports. Let your team handle that.

May be good to point out:

Mirza is a hard-line authoritarian.

It's gotta be a fetish or something.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:19:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:14:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:12:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
Very well. Remember to exclude any opinions of the members here when it comes to reports. Let your team handle that.

May be good to point out:

Mirza is a hard-line authoritarian.

It's gotta be a fetish or something.

Mirza also holds some seriously unpopular opinions around here. it makes sense that he would be worried about bias.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:19:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe user drama will get in the way of good reporting. A group of friends on DDO can essentially get rid of whoever they want by inciting them into argument. As much as a moderator may be "demonized," user reporting isn't the solution either. Maybe a combination of the two is needed - a check and balance method.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:11:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I like the idea, but I feel like there might be some "gray area" posts that can't be adequately judged without looking at the surrounding context.

This was my thought precisely. Some things need context. Other than that, it sounds like a great system.
RyanN
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:20:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:08:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like this.

But I must urge that the users have a say in what the new terms will be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree FREEDO... the community should 100% define the guidelines. Personally, I don't care what the guidelines are... I just want them to be clearly stated so we can build a legitimate framework for moderation.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:24:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think banning a member should be up to the community and the moderating team. Again, checks and balances. Users should be allowed to defend themselves, and moderators should be allowed to bring up cases against them. Heck, even vice versa. An abusive moderator shouldn't go on abusing, either. The Users should be able to bring up cases against moderators as well.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:25:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:20:33 PM, RyanN wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:08:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like this.

But I must urge that the users have a say in what the new terms will be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree FREEDO... the community should 100% define the guidelines. Personally, I don't care what the guidelines are... I just want them to be clearly stated so we can build a legitimate framework for moderation.

Then you are one thousand times better than Phil. The terms are so vague now that "against the ToS" simply means "Phil doesn't like you".

So, shall we hold a vote on certain issues on the ToS at a time? How is this going to be decided?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:25:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:20:33 PM, RyanN wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:08:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like this.

But I must urge that the users have a say in what the new terms will be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree FREEDO... the community should 100% define the guidelines. Personally, I don't care what the guidelines are... I just want them to be clearly stated so we can build a legitimate framework for moderation.

I'm down with extremely liberal guidelines. As long as things aren't somehow escalated to physical violence, I don't really think that any restrictions are even necessary.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:26:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:20:33 PM, RyanN wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:08:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like this.

But I must urge that the users have a say in what the new terms will be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree FREEDO... the community should 100% define the guidelines. Personally, I don't care what the guidelines are... I just want them to be clearly stated so we can build a legitimate framework for moderation.

Cool, someone who realizes the community opinion actually matters on a website they frequent and keep alive :) I like you!
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:29:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:26:21 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:20:33 PM, RyanN wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:08:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like this.

But I must urge that the users have a say in what the new terms will be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree FREEDO... the community should 100% define the guidelines. Personally, I don't care what the guidelines are... I just want them to be clearly stated so we can build a legitimate framework for moderation.

Cool, someone who realizes the community opinion actually matters on a website they frequent and keep alive :) I like you!

Yes. I think the new administration is going to be a huge improvement.

For the record, I like the proposed method. At the very least, it would be good for trial run. The nature of the ToS will probably be the biggest factor as to how successful it is.

I vote for a generally lax ToS.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:25:04 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm down with extremely liberal guidelines. As long as things aren't somehow escalated to physical violence, I don't really think that any restrictions are even necessary.
I am sorry for asking such a... Horrible question, but where on the map do I find debate.org?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:39:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Askbob's suggestions for the ToS:

" 1. No pornography - (as in actual photographs of real people) boobs, penis, vagina. Paint drawings are not porn. Professional anime porn is porn.

2. No threats of physical violence with serious intention: "I will find your house and come and kill you" = threat "bitch i outta kill you for that", "i'm gonna murder you in this mafia game" = not threats

3. No spamming. Spam = nonsense words posted hundreds of times. Spam = advertisements getting someone to purchase something. Not Spam = "KFC" repeated three times

4. No creating multiple accounts - plain and simple

5. No cheating in mafia games or interfering (as in you're not a part of the game don't go spamming the thread) (or what philo did) Only bans/suspensions should only be related to participation in mafia but not in the rest of the forum."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:41:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:39:47 PM, JBlake wrote:
Askbob's suggestions for the ToS:
4. No creating multiple accounts - plain and simple
Excuse me, I also have a suggestion for the night: no heart-splitting irony!

Thank you.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:42:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that we should have it done by people not on this site, and that if the person in question urges that context matters, I believe that is when site mod[s] would come in handy, to see the situation for themselves.

I believe we should revise the ToS, and make the new rules voted by by the community. Cussing for example should not be against the ToS, but personal attack are. ("I don't have time to sit on my --- all day so I'm getting off soon" vs "STFU you dumb---" basically.)
I would also like it if there was a way to make it so you cannot vote in debates you are in.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:47:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:39:47 PM, JBlake wrote:
Askbob's suggestions for the ToS:

" 1. No pornography - (as in actual photographs of real people) boobs, penis, vagina. Paint drawings are not porn. Professional anime porn is porn.

I don't see why it should be an issue as long as its marked such before since only links ca be posted, you would have to choose to look at it knowing its nature.

2. No threats of physical violence with serious intention: "I will find your house and come and kill you" = threat "bitch i outta kill you for that", "i'm gonna murder you in this mafia game" = not threats

Agreed.

3. No spamming. Spam = nonsense words posted hundreds of times. Spam = advertisements getting someone to purchase something. Not Spam = "KFC" repeated three times

kfc

4. No creating multiple accounts - plain and simple

Depends on why I'd say. And lol @askbob saying that

5. No cheating in mafia games or interfering (as in you're not a part of the game don't go spamming the thread) (or what philo did) Only bans/suspensions should only be related to participation in mafia but not in the rest of the forum."

Wow cheating in mafia is a serious offense...I thought it would just get you banned from playing mafia, by the great mafia committee.
I fail to see how mafia is more important then debates on a debate site.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:47:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:29:07 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:26:21 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:20:33 PM, RyanN wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:08:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like this.

But I must urge that the users have a say in what the new terms will be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree FREEDO... the community should 100% define the guidelines. Personally, I don't care what the guidelines are... I just want them to be clearly stated so we can build a legitimate framework for moderation.

Cool, someone who realizes the community opinion actually matters on a website they frequent and keep alive :) I like you!

Yes. I think the new administration is going to be a huge improvement.

For the record, I like the proposed method. At the very least, it would be good for trial run. The nature of the ToS will probably be the biggest factor as to how successful it is.

I vote for a generally lax ToS.

Agree with vi and jblake.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:51:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:47:20 PM, lovelife wrote:
4. No creating multiple accounts - plain and simple

Actually, he has never had multiple accounts at the same time. He just created a bunch of new ones in succession so that he could continue in the community. But none of them were at the same time.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:52:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:51:04 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:47:20 PM, lovelife wrote:
4. No creating multiple accounts - plain and simple

Actually, he has never had multiple accounts at the same time. He just created a bunch of new ones in succession so that he could continue in the community. But none of them were at the same time.

So rule 4 should be "Do not have 2 active accounts at once"
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
RyanN
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 2:17:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 1:19:46 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/14/2010 1:11:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I like the idea, but I feel like there might be some "gray area" posts that can't be adequately judged without looking at the surrounding context.

This was my thought precisely. Some things need context. Other than that, it sounds like a great system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed. The context would be provided.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 2:26:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 2:25:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
May I propose that we make this one thread http://www.debate.org... exempt from all rules?

Please do not. This is a classic "troll" thread, however it is not funny and is just a place for users to artificially inflate their post count. So, no.

And inb4 Freedos wants a /b/
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 2:55:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 2:25:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
May I propose that we make this one thread http://www.debate.org... exempt from all rules?

I agree, it is just one thread that users use to rant, think things through, and get the troll out of them.
For example I noticed I was going off topic when replying to someone so instead I c/p'd what I was saying and linked them there, so the conversation would continue to be on topic, and I have noticed others do that too.
It helps keep the other threads clean and free, and to place rules on it would be a shame because it is almost never taken seriously.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 3:25:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a disaster.

Ah, well. Attendance is not compulsory. I just wonder whether there really will be a comparable (or better) place to go if this turns sour.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 3:26:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 3:25:25 PM, Ren wrote:
This is a disaster.

Ah, well. Attendance is not compulsory. I just wonder whether there really will be a comparable (or better) place to go if this turns sour.

reading my mind.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 3:40:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pessimists, the lot of you. Can't you at least be glad that this is the most interaction and consideration of anything we've wanted from the site's administration in the time most of you have actually been here? Jeez. Looking a gift horse in the mouth I say.