Moderating ccmfans.net

[adz]

.. *originally posted in the ccmfans brainstorming thread ...


Here's something I was thinking about for post moderation.. last season was a fairly good one on here, with not as much crap as previous seasons, and the post quality way up, but I think that was helped by the good results on the field. I know that there are a few people just waiting to come back and rub it in our faces when we string a few poor results together. Some people just get off on making others miserable, can't say a good word about the club when we are doing well, but will be all over it when something goes wrong.

Anyway... here's the basic idea. We have two ways of rating posts already set up. You can give the whole topic a rating out of 5, and you can vote each post up or down. We could set up a trigger so that if a post gets voted down to (for example) -5 it disappears. Then if someone has a certain number of posts taken down, they get their account restricted so they can't post for a couple of days, followed by a "probation" period of 1 week, where if anything they post gets voted off, they lose posting privileges again.

On the flip side we need to look at some way of rewarding the higher rated posts...

 

[scottmac]

Cool, some good ideas here.

Here's something I was thinking about for post moderation.. last season was a fairly good one on here, with not as much crap as previous seasons, and the post quality way up, but I think that was helped by the good results on the field. I know that there are a few people just waiting to come back and rub it in our faces when we string a few poor results together. Some people just get off on making others miserable, can't say a good word about the club when we are doing well, but will be all over it when something goes wrong.

Anyway... here's the basic idea. We have two ways of rating posts already set up. You can give the whole topic a rating out of 5, and you can vote each post up or down. We could set up a trigger so that if a post gets voted down to (for example) -5 it disappears. Then if someone has a certain number of posts taken down, they get their account restricted so they can't post for a couple of days, followed by a "probation" period of 1 week, where if anything they post gets voted off, they lose posting privileges again.

On the flip side we need to look at some way of rewarding the higher rated posts...

Not sure about that.

We need to have all trains of thought and this type of system may encourage some to stay in the square so to speak. Sometimes the load and obnoxious ( not that there are any here ) spark meaniful and lively conversation and I would not want to discourage that.

 

[adz]

It's a tough one! We want some good discussions going, but at the same time don't want to have to put up with the flood of negative, depressing crap and personal insults that has happened in the past.

The main idea is to weed out those people that are only on here to piss people off. Some have admitted in the past that they only post things to get a reaction, and that is pretty much the definition of trolling. It's bad enough after a loss (or a few losses) without reading some so-called fans posts basically gloating about how shit they think we are (for example).

The current system is down to a handful of moderators to judge what is acceptable and delete anything that isn't. Some people go feral if their post gets deleted or if they get banned for being a dickhead, so it makes the moderators a bit less willing to pull the trigger sometimes. It would be good to find a way to have these decisions made by the majority somehow.

Maybe someone else has some better ideas on how to handle this? That's what this thread is for

 

[Bex]

I think it's more of a philosophical argument to say that we shouldn't use the rating system to restrict posters than a practical one. Let's face it, if someone is coming on here and always posting negative crap that the majority don't like, then isn't that exactly what we're trying to limit from the site? We're not talking about a permanent ban here, just limiting the frequency of that persons posts after they've proven they're being a pain in the bum - isn't that exactly what we need.

The hard part here will be to determine exactly what triggers the ban, how long it lasts, whether the ban gets longer for repeated offences, how new posters are handled, etc. This is something that's very subjective. I think we just need to have someone think logically about all situations and then dictate those terms. The terms should be published so there's no comeback for people who cop a ban.

If that someone doing the dictating needs some ideas here's my 2 cents worth.

Base the "reputation" on an average of a set number of posts (I'm thinking for example the last 20 posts). If you're able to build a good reputation in the last 20 posts then you can afford to be a bit negative for several posts without copping a ban. If you think we can accept more negativity than lower the value at which the reputation triggers a ban. If less negativity is desired, raise the value.

A newbie who just comes on to troll would maybe get a few posts before the average starts kicking in and if they've only come on to troll they'll get the ban - good riddance I reckon. The senstivity of this can be adjusted by number of posts before the reputation starts to count and by the reputation trigger point.

Not sure if it's easy or hard to set up the above so that's also a consideration.

It may also be useful to have the ability for other registered forum members to vote people back in. e.g. a list of recently banned or almost banned users where, if they get enough votes, the ban is removed. Perhaps only people with a reasonable number of posts could vote on that?

Anyway, the above is only an idea. It may have big holes in it, but this thread was for the raw ideas after all.

 

[scottmac]

I think thats a brilliant idea with the 20 post average. It allows the odd negative rant (which I know I've done on occasion) and targets the serial offenders or the newbie trolls.

 

[adz]

I've just made a new thread because I think it's worth keeping this discussion separate to other site ideas.

Firstly, just to clear some things up regarding bans. There seems to be a general perception that people are getting banned from here left, right and center. That's just not the case and it is the vocal minority, whingers, that seem to be behind this. A quick look at the logs and less than a dozen accounts got banned over the whole of season 6, the majority for spam, a couple for other reasons. Anyone who has their account banned is given reasons and a way to get their account reinstated, and if anyone else has a problem with the bans and wants to get abusive, they can join them.

People have to remember this is a 100% privately funded website run by volunteers, and whilst the majority already do, the annoying trouble-making minority need to show a little more respect. As long as I am paying for the web server, development, software licenses and all that stuff that keeps this site online, I have the final say on who does or does not have access to it.


Now, back to the topic!

Whatever system gets put in place it will have to be well documented so everyone knows what's going on, if their post gets deleted or if they can't post or access the site, why that happened.

Bex, I like the average rep idea... that could maybe build up a "tolerance level" so that instead of saying your post will disappear if it gets to negative 5 rating, that might be a bit higher if they have been posting some good stuff recently, and would allow for the occasional "flip out" but not a constant barrage of hate.

If anyone else has any other ideas on moderating the forum then put them here.
All ideas are welcome!

 

[Atomic]

Here's my 2 cents...

I'm not particularly enthused about the reputation idea although the concept has some merit. I think the system Bex explained can be opened up to corruption if there is a group of trolls acting together and voting on each others posts. Do you remeber a couple of years back where we had the members of the Central Coast Youth (not quite trolls, but annoying nonetheless)? They all seemed to basically post crap and all supported each other if there was ever any arguement over the contents of their posts. It was a difficult period to post something without having a smart arse reply being posted by one of these guys. I'm sure they would all be boosting each other's reputation, thus ensuring that they dont get banned or restricted.

So, the reputation idea is fine, but it's the application of it that is the issue for me. I'm in favour of just leaving it to the moderators. They've all been on the site since day dot and know the difference between a regular poster (with an inherent reputation gained by consistent quality posts) who may be ranting about something that is unpopular (yet forum worthy) as oppossed to a troll who has little to no inherent reputaion, that is seeking just to destroy a thread or cause trouble. Does that make sense?

I think the mods can also appreciate the value of the odd troll in the lead up to derby games. For example, I can handle the shit that the scummers post in the lead up to the F3 derby, and I think the mods should let that pass. If, however, they continue with their irrational posts at other times of the season, then the mods can just delete it.

My vote is for pro-active moderation rather than a user based voting system. If moderation is going to be the direction then perhaps we can all come to some agreement on the terms of reference under which a moderator should be acting.

 

[adz]

Good points Atomic. The idea would not be to replace moderators but have a system that can be used as well as them. As you pointed out, we still need the moderating team for when things get missed or if there is a situation as you described, where people are obviously gaming the system.

I can see the flaws of the system too, where someone could be having a good argument, but happen to be saying things the majority don't agree with, and they might get their posts voted off... which would suck. There have been times when someone has posted a link to an article about a subject people didn't like (injured player, maybe something about the Scum), and they got voted down... talk about shooting the messenger!

Back to the drawing board on that I guess.

The main thinking behind this was to get a system in place that can remove the occasional dickhead who is only here to stir up shit. Whilst it is only a minority, unfortunately it is this vocal minority that is causing all the headaches on the site. They think they can say and do whatever they want, and go feral if they get their posts deleted or banned from the site. This makes it difficult to look at a post and say... well that is a bit out of order, but if I do anything about it they are just going to get all sooky and I really couldn't be bothered dealing with the fallout, when I have an actual life with actual issues to worry about.

So far I have 3 solutions
1. Democracy (or tyranny of the majority): Some type of voting system where "the masses" get to say what posts/people stay or go.
2. Evil dictators - stealth mode (current system): People are dealt with in private by moderators. Posts drop off without fuss, people are banned without public announcements and fanfare. I generally get to cop all the flack if the person happens to be a Mariners fan.
3. Evil dictators - noisy, waving the ban stick mode: See this thread on sfcu for an example.

Either way, there is a set of forum guidelines being worked on that should help clear up what is considered trolling, etc. and that will be put out for comments in the coming weeks.

Any other ideas would be appreciated.

 

[Bex]

Yes, and it's worth noting that whilst a couple thought the "averaged reputation" idea was good, nobody actually gave me any reputation votes. That system would rely upon people actually voting on reputation. I imagine it's probably only the extreme ends of the post quality spectrum that will attract votes. That may cause problems for the average poster who doesn't get a lot of kudos but has the odd rant and could then be in danger of a ban.

The thing is, I'm not sure there's any foolproof method. I expect the most perfect system will probably rely upon the most human intervention. And therein lies the problem with that.

 

[adz]

Yes, and it's worth noting that whilst a couple thought the "averaged reputation" idea was good, nobody actually gave me any reputation votes. That system would rely upon people actually voting on reputation. I imagine it's probably only the extreme ends of the post quality spectrum that will attract votes. That may cause problems for the average poster who doesn't get a lot of kudos but has the odd rant and could then be in danger of a ban.

The thing is, I'm not sure there's any foolproof method. I expect the most perfect system will probably rely upon the most human intervention. And therein lies the problem with that.

aha yeah and I'm a little surprised my posts haven't been voted down to record lows to take the piss... or show what a shit idea it is... or both

I'm hoping the lack of voting will change next season with a little education... that sounds all proper but it just means telling people how and why they should vote and giving them a bit of a nudge. Maybe some incentives to vote too, or at least some sort of incentive to get a higher rated post.

That's a bit vague but at this stage there are no solid plans, just that the voting will be looked at, and hopefully some ways of using the results (high and low rated posts/topics).

Back to the moderating, whatever we try wouldn't be set in stone, so if it doesn't work we can always scrap it.

 

[kevrenor]

Keep the comments coming people ... better than being a vacuum out here

 

[style_cafe]

A tough one for sure.

The main attraction of this forum for me is the open discussions.
I wouldn`t like to see censorship on here but I realise that some posts do not enhance discussion.(I`ve probably posted a few myself

However,we do have moderators on here to keep an eye on things & to make sure abusive posts are kept to a minimum.

IMO if 5 different moderators give a someone the thumbs down then thats good enough for me, as long as warnings are issued prior to the ban.

A system showing a symbol under the posters name
IE. Joe Boggs
***
would show that Joe is on thin ice.

 

[Atomic]

I'm getting a bit fed up of late with people starting threads with topics that belong in existing threads, e.g. player movements, songs and chants or Austrailian football issues that are being posted in the Mariners thread, etc, etc... The mods have been pretty good in the past redirecting posts into the correct threads... can you please do a quick clean up and get rid of the newly created threads that belong elsewhere?