librelist archives

Re: Proposals for Moderation Strategies

Re: Proposals for Moderation Strategies by Billy Gray
- Re: Proposals for Moderation Strategies by Mike Dalessio

Re: Proposals for Moderation Strategies

From:: Billy Gray
Date:: 2009-12-07 @ 05:18

Hi Zed,

I really enjoyed reading the proposals for moderation you posted on your
blog, and the thought put into them. I rather like Proposal 1 the best
(where users simply "hate" and rate, and there is a record of their
behavior), because no one really wants to be a list Moderator General when
there's actual work to be done. Well, I'm sure some people do, but let's
leave that aside.

Anyway, something stood out to me in Proposal 3:

> In this model, you would still have the “hate link” on each email, but the
link wouldn’t bother asking the user what they thought it was. This is to
prevent a bias in the view of the moderator.

After I read this, I started wondering whether it is necessary to be as
guarded about "trolls" on lists as it is necessary to keep spam out.
Consider how the problem of trolling might be handled with a block or hide
feature on the part of the unwilling recipient. I'm thinking of this in
terms of a list I used to be on, a community discussion list, in which two
trolls were extremely obnoxious and constantly posting, driving members of
the community away, and generally baiting a stalwart few into responding to
them. It would very interesting if, instead of "hating" an email, I could
simply reply back to Lamson, "ignore," and simply not see that person's
posts anymore, since I consider them garbage and unworthy of reflection.

Now, obviously there are holes in that, especially since I may end up
getting responses to The Troll from other people on the lists -- but in that
case maybe that's not a hole, perhaps there is something to discuss in that
thread, since other people that I haven't ignored have taken the time to
provide their thoughts. This strikes me as not only rather democratic, but
also providing a window of opportunity to reconsider one's regard for
another's opinion, in case a "hate" judgement is made in haste.

Treating trolls in the manner greatly reduces the complexity of all three
moderation strategies, I would think. Not a magic bullet, but perhaps worth
considering?

All my best,
Billy

-- 
Billy Gray
http://zetetic.net

Re: Proposals for Moderation Strategies

From:: Mike Dalessio
Date:: 2009-12-07 @ 16:01

Howdy all,

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Billy Gray <wgray@zetetic.net> wrote:

> Hi Zed,
>
> I really enjoyed reading the proposals for moderation you posted on your
> blog, and the thought put into them. I rather like Proposal 1 the best
> (where users simply "hate" and rate, and there is a record of their
> behavior), because no one really wants to be a list Moderator General when
> there's actual work to be done. Well, I'm sure some people do, but let's
> leave that aside.
>

Agreed, Proposal #1 would be my preferred option, for its simplicity and
no-moderator philosophy.

Also, if I understand correctly, Proposal #1 is a necessary step on the path
to Proposal #3. So, I'd vote to start work on #1, and if people still feel
strongly about #3, well, we're already halfway there.


>
> Anyway, something stood out to me in Proposal 3:
>
> > In this model, you would still have the “hate link” on each email, but
> the link wouldn’t bother asking the user what they thought it was. This is
> to prevent a bias in the view of the moderator.
>
> After I read this, I started wondering whether it is necessary to be as
> guarded about "trolls" on lists as it is necessary to keep spam out.
> Consider how the problem of trolling might be handled with a block or hide
> feature on the part of the unwilling recipient. I'm thinking of this in
> terms of a list I used to be on, a community discussion list, in which two
> trolls were extremely obnoxious and constantly posting, driving members of
> the community away, and generally baiting a stalwart few into responding to
> them. It would very interesting if, instead of "hating" an email, I could
> simply reply back to Lamson, "ignore," and simply not see that person's
> posts anymore, since I consider them garbage and unworthy of reflection.
>

> Now, obviously there are holes in that, especially since I may end up
> getting responses to The Troll from other people on the lists -- but in that
> case maybe that's not a hole, perhaps there is something to discuss in that
> thread, since other people that I haven't ignored have taken the time to
> provide their thoughts. This strikes me as not only rather democratic, but
> also providing a window of opportunity to reconsider one's regard for
> another's opinion, in case a "hate" judgement is made in haste.
>
> Treating trolls in the manner greatly reduces the complexity of all three
> moderation strategies, I would think. Not a magic bullet, but perhaps worth
> considering?
>
> All my best,
> Billy
>
> --
> Billy Gray
> http://zetetic.net
>



-- 
mike dalessio
mike@csa.net