All past and current platforms share moderation failures.
In an idea shangri la community moderation is conducted on the individual level internally without the need for members of authority or flagging systems…However humanity has not reached that level of enlightenment.
Putting neutral controls in place to help reduce personal bias in moderation is key. As often demonstrated in government without controls or after thought audits due to lack of controls. Often power corrupts even the most well intentioned individuals. Though not all.
But Tolkien did say even the purest of heart will eventually start to be corrupted by the one ring.
Removal of temptation removes the possibility of faltering.
I have been around since Fido networks during the Dos BBs days. History repeats because of both not learning from the past and limiting our future with tunnel visions.
I wouldn’t feel dismissed. One of the very great things about Discourse is that all things for the most part can be accomplished in one form or another.
And has been proven over time an idea once opposed by DeVs may eventually prove enough merit to be merged into core.
It is interesting at times though how often an idea might be dismissed.until an idea is clearly demonstrated to illuminate it’s own value.
Tbf I really do not like Reddir’s sloppy volunteer moderation or karma system. Youtube once had a reasonable system now it only shows upvotes downvotes hidden.
At a base Moderators are rated by the community on a quick scan.
Some Companies have workers evaluate their supervisors and based on a number of worker reviews combined with the Supervisor"s manager review gets combined of sorts.
Really not a bad system to foster growth on both levels of member and moderator.
I have a multiple occasions members have approached me on a moderated action They knew I was involved in and provided feedback when they have felt I was unfair. And they were successful…So responsibly I apologized to those involved and the community accepting & owning my fallibility. - This gains a moderator credibility by demonstrating we are just as human.
Ed iirc isn’t there or was there not a plugin at one time where you could vote for ppl to be a moderator?
Before was maybe a bit risky. But with Category Mods being less powerful maybe not aa much of risk. Been awhile but recall some kind of plugin..
Kind of from a quick scan. This one.
Not being used in the fashion of electing mods. Which is a good thing as Full Mod is a position to be careful granting if as Admin your company allows that discretion.
I wanted to set up a news site with inevitably some political topics.
Initially I would be the sole admin/mod.
I was concerned I’d spend a lot of my time moderating.
Users flagging would be a big help, but also a hinderance (false flags).
If users held politically diametric views they could attempt to use the flag system as censorship of an opinion they disagreed with.
Flag integrity would be a huge help.
If the false flaggers got a negative weighting. After a number of false flags their flag could be given no weight.
Correct flags a positive weighting … that gave their future flag more credence.
Flag integrity would be helpful in my case.
If you have teams of mods less so.
I hadn’t even considered Mods posts being flagged. Seems an edge case.
Also as I got zero likes for my original suggestion until the OP gave me one ( thanks) it’s probably also an edge case problem/solution.
I’m amused, or is that saddened by how many specifics are set out in this thread that are examples that my attempts to start discussion of the general mechanisms in societies/ the sociology of digital community … & thus isolate cause, effect, hypothetical responses, design guides and patterns/ anti-patterns.
Well understood problem domains can have simple solutions (high degree of coherence in advance). Complicated domains necessarily have many components that with care and precision leads to solutions but normally fragile. Complex domains represent case where vision of the relevance and relevant components has not been isolated and thus need an exploratory approach - coherence can only be detected in arrears - [This is the observation that sits at the philosophical core of the agile software development movement and thereby generates concrete artefacts such as the daily standup or the product owner with a backlog that is groomed on the basis of user needs]
If a moderation system is set up with only the capacity to deal with simple then there is never the opportunity to move the complex through understanding, past complicated and into the realm of simple.
I’m sure I read somewhere aspirations about next generation online community within meta but I currently see that as precluded by the moderation stance. The flag integrity mechanism may have relevance but is probably in the complicated / fragile category. Another relevant component would be the freedom to discuss the sociological drivers that are not yet clear enough to be put in a highly coherent thread but would get there in the future
Your quite welcome even though pur ideas have perhaps some different directions. But are related as well.
Political topics much like we experience here with differing pov & philosophies on how to achieve similar goal/end points. Creates alignment issues.
There is a flag integrity of sorts based on how a moderator resolves a flag.
for example. Flags a moderator agrees with on a particular user will keep their flag score at 100%.
If you have a user for example that you almost always disagree with their flags their flag score drops in %.
On the one forum I am a volunteer admin we had a very dedicated troll that would post tons of links to other posts on the forum as a new user. The system would then flag the new user and all linked posts. Only the new user in question was the issue.
However we would then have to disagree with so many system issued false flags the system flag score dropped to 50%.
So moderators are incentivised to find things to complain about. This is a memetic mechanism that probably explains part of the culture of meta and by extension through Conway’s law other communities and may come from reddit and source-something (forge?) both of which I’ve heard can be more penal than rewarding.
It also explains why a post I wrote had the use of the word ‘catholic’ with the lower case c AND quoted in single quotes - Which means illustrative of the rich variety of life - was treated as if I had written the word Catholic with a capital C which is a reference to a religion.
You get the behaviours you incentivise, whether explicitly or as unintended consequences
디스코드(Discord) 서버는 보통 거의 또는 전혀 모더레이션이 없는 덤프(dump) 카테고리/채널, 즉 “Free4all” 채널을 사용합니다. 이 채널은 공개적으로 볼 수 없으며, 연령 인증을 요구하거나 사용자가 접근을 신청해야 합니다. 다만 디스코드에서는 보통 연령 인증을 요구하는 경우가 많습니다.
디스코스 메타(Discourse Meta)가 #plugins 및 #customization:theme-component를 통해 확장 가능하도록 개방되어 있다는 점은 매우 긍정적인 선견지명이며, 이것이 성공을 거두는 매우 큰 이유입니다.
철학에 대한 공개적 토론을 유지하는 것도 중요하며, 서로 다른 관점(pov)에 대한 건강한 토론이 이루어져야 합니다. 토론이 오해되고 닫힐 때만 일이 늦어질 수 있습니다.
플래그 무결성 시스템(flag integrity system)은 존재합니다. 그러나 모더레이터 선택이 감히 말하지만 유능한 손에 있지 않은 경우, 모더레이터가 직접 감시(babysitting)하지 않는 한 이 시스템은 불공정합니다. 저는 제 사례 시나리오와, 관리자로서 유지보수/디자인 컨트롤을 담당하는 다른 위치에 있는 사람들에 대해서만 말씀드리고 있습니다. 이는 회사가 누가 모더레이터가 될지 결정하고, 개인의 도덕성 대신 시스템 제어를 의존하는 경우를 가리킵니다.
This is a really general statement, that may not account for both technologists and politicians being people who create problems, not just band-aid and/or fix them.
One of these can certainly be with the discourse flags, if these are being misused or ignored.
Very wicked can be a problem wherein, one reports there is a problem with something to someone else. The other person replies: well, you’ll need to talk to that other person over there about that.
One goes and talks to that other person about the problem, and they have the same reply: You’ll need to go back to talk to that other person you just talked with about that.
Reply: “I just talked to them, they told me I need to talk to you!”
Then reply to that: “Well, perhaps you should go to therapy for help with that then.”
Therapist tells you: Everything you say must be kept confidential, I’m not allowed to help you with any problems.
The Discourse moderation system has a weighting system that works in the way you are describing. The likelihood that a flagged post will be hidden is based on the reliability of the flagger’s previous flags. The score is determined by the percentage of times that a user’s flags have been agreed with by a staff member.
I don’t believe that the flag weighting system is documented on Meta. One of my goals for the coming week is to try to document it.
@JammyDodger님의 의견을 다시 한번 강조하자면, 이 주제는 Community Building 카테고리에 속한다고 생각하지 않습니다. 이 카테고리는 커뮤니티를 출시하고, 구축하고, 성장시키고, 관리하는 것에 대한 토론을 위한 것입니다. 제 생각에는 이 카테고리가 주로 Discourse 사이트를 관리하는 사람들을 위해 마련된 것 같습니다. 저는 온라인 커뮤니티와 관련된 다양한 아이디어에 관심이 많기 때문에, 이 범위를 제 스스로 꽤 자주 넓혀서 사용하곤 합니다.
Meta의 모더레이션에 대한 불만은 접수되었습니다. 커뮤니티 카테고리는 애매한 부분이 있는데, Meta는 예시로 사용하기에 명백히 적합한 사이트이지만, Meta의 모더레이션에 대해 불만을 토로하는 적절한 장소는 아니기 때문입니다.
제 관점에서 보면, 이러한 유형의 토론에는 사용자 생성 그룹이 유용할 것입니다. 자유롭게 가입하고 탈퇴할 수 있는 그룹에서 토론이 이루어진다면, 저는 기꺼이 참여할 의향이 있습니다. Meta의 모더레이션에 대한 불만을 제외하면, 여기서 논의되고 있는 많은 내용들에 관심이 있습니다.
이 주제를 닫겠습니다. 위에서 언급한 점을 염두에 두고, 여기서 소개된 아이디어에서 파생된 새로운 주제를 자유롭게 시작해 주세요.
system now it only shows upvotes downvotes hidden.
thanks) it’s probably also an edge case problem/solution.