I've got a new feature almost ready to go. I'm pretty stoked about this one because I've been wanting it for quite literally years, but it was never possible on Reddit.
Hey, guess what? We're not on Reddit!
But before I continue, I want to temper expectations. This is a prototype of a first revision of an experimental feature. It is not going to look impressive; it is not going to be impressive. There's a lot of work left to do.
The feature is currently live on our perpetually-running dev site. Log in, click any thread, and go look below the Comment Preview. You'll see a quokka in a suit asking you for help. (His name is Quincy.) Click the cute li'l guy and you'll be asked to rate three comments. Do so, and click Submit. Thank you! Your reward is another picture of Quincy and a sense of satisfaction.
So, uh . . . . what?
Okay, lemme explain.
This is the first part of a feature that I'm calling Volunteering. Once in a while, the site is going to prompt you to help out, and if you volunteer, it'll give you a few minutes of work to do. Right now this is going to be "read some comments and say if they're good or not". Later this might include stuff like "compare two comments and tell me if one of them is better", or "read a comment, then try to come up with a catchy headline for it".
These are intentionally small, and they're entirely optional. You can ignore it altogether if you like.
I'm hoping these can end up being the backbone of a new improved moderation system.
Isn't this just voting, but fancy?
You'd think so! But there are critical differences.
First, you do not choose the things to judge. The system chooses the things it wants you to judge. You are not presented with thousands of comments and asked to vote on the ones you think are important, no, you are given (at the moment) three specific comments and information is requested of you.
This means that I don't need to worry about disproportionate votecount on popular comments. Nor do I need to worry about any kind of vote-brigading, or people deciding to downvote everything that a user has posted. The system gets only the feedback it asks for. This is a pull system; the system pulls information from the userbase in exactly the quantities it wants instead of the userbase shoving possibly-unwanted information at the scoring systems.
Second, you can be only as influential as the system lets you. On the dev site you can volunteer as often as you want for testing purposes, but on the live site, you're going to - for now - be limited to once every 20 hours. I'll probably change this a lot, but nevertheless, if the system decides you've contributed enough, it'll thank you kindly and then cut you off. Do you want to spend all day volunteering in order to influence the community deeply? Too bad! Not allowed.
But this goes deeper than it sounds. Part of having the system prompt you is that not all prompts will be the system attempting to get actionable info from you. Some of the prompts will be the system trying to compare your choices against a reference, and the system will then use this comparison to figure out how much to trust your decisions.
That reference, of course, is the mods.
I've previously referred to this as the Megaphone system or the Amplifier system. One of our devs called it a "force multiplier". I think this gets across the core of what I'm aiming for. The goal here is not majority-rules, it's not fully decentralized moderation. It's finding people who generally agree with the mods and then quietly harnessing them to handle the easy moderation cases.
(We have a lot of easy moderation cases.)
There's another important point here. The mods are only human and we make mistakes. My hope is that we can get enough volunteer help to provide significantly more individual decisions than the mods can, and my hope is that the combined efforts of several people who don't quite agree with the mods in all cases is still going to be more reliable than any single mod. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there's people out there who are better at judging posts than our mods are! It's just hard to find you; some of you may not even comment, and you're pretty undiscoverable right now, but you will certainly get a chance to volunteer!
Also, this will hopefully improve turnaround time a lot. I'm tired of filtered comments taking hours to get approved! I'm tired of really bad comments sticking around for half a day! There are many people constantly commenting and voting, and if I can get a few minutes of help from people now and then, we can handle those rapidly instead of having to wait for a mod to be around.
Wow! You get all of this, with absolutely no downsides or concerns!
Well, hold on.
The big concern here is that virtually nobody has ever done this before. The closest model I have is Slashdot's metamoderation system. Besides that, I'm flying blind.
I also have to make sure this isn't exploitable. The worst-case scenario is people being able to use this to let specific bad comments through. I really want to avoid that, and I've got ideas on how to avoid it, but it's going to take work on my part to sort out the details.
And there's probably issues that I'm not even thinking of. Again: flying blind. If you think of issues, bring 'em up; if you see issues, definitely bring 'em up.
Oh man! So, all this stuff is going to be running real soon, right?
Nope.
First I need some data to work off. Full disclosure: all the current system does is collect data, then ignore it.
But it is collecting data, and as soon as I've got some data, I'll be working on the next segment.
This is the first step towards having a platform that's actually better-moderated than the current brand of highly-centralized sites. I don't know if it'll work, but I think it will.
Please go test it out on the dev site, report issues, and when it shows up here (probably in a few days) click the button roughly daily and spend a few minutes on it. Your time will not be wasted.
Blocking
Right now this site's block feature works much the same as Reddit's. But I want to change that, because it sucks.
My current proposal is:
-
If you block someone, you will no longer see their comments, receive PMs from them, or be notified if they reply to your comments.
-
This does not stop them from seeing your comments, nor does it stop them from replying to your comments.
-
If they attempt to reply to your comment, it will include the note "This user has blocked you. You are still welcome to reply, but your replies will be held to a stricter standard of civility."
-
This note is accurate and we will do so.
That's the entire proposed feature. Feedback welcome!
User Flair and Usernames
We're going to start cracking down a bit on hyperpartisan or antagonistic user flair. Basically, if we'd hit you with a warning for putting it in a comment, we'll hit you with a warning for putting it in your flair. If anyone has a really good reason for us to not do this, now's the time to mention it!
Same goes for usernames. On this site, you can actually change your display username, and we're just leaving that in place. So we'll tell you to change your name if we have to. Extra for usernames: don't use a misleading or easily-confused username, okay? If it looks like you're masquerading as an existing well-known user, just stop it.
I'm currently assuming that both of these fall under our existing ruleset and don't need new rules applied. If you disagree strongly, let me know.
The Usual Stuff
Give feedback! Tell me how you're doing? Do you have questions? Do you have comments? This is the place for them!
Are you a coder and want to help out? We have a lot of work to do - come join the dev discord.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't understand how in particular it sucks, although I'm sure there are reasons. But I can't see how allowing someone you've blocked to check your comments really is a better solution, and it seems worse. When I block someone because I feel that they are trollish, arguing in bad faith or for reprehensible views I don't want them building their own conversations on what I post; I blocked them for a reason! To give a concrete example, I've blocked the pedofascist, but if they will be able to read and respond to my posts there are certain topics I just won't post about then.
I think that's a carry-over from the old site. Some people were using blocking as a means of censorship. Let's say BobertaTheBuilderina and PadDBare were in a spat. Boberta blocks Pad. What happens when Boberta posts something or is in the middle of a comment thread that Pad wants to reply to, but not necessarily to Boberta? Now Pad is blocked from responding to anyone in that thread, even if they want to reply to something BillyGoatzGuffy said about "I have no idea how many tarantulas can do the tarantella in a teapot, anyone got a bluesky estimate?"
We had at least a few instances of people asking "Hey, I can't comment here, but I got nothing from the mods about being banned, what's up?" for things like this. So "Just to let you know, you're blocked, but you can still reply to people who didn't block you in this thread" is an improvement, at least in my view.
EDIT: And some people were using blocking not because "BillyGoatz called me a bad name and broke site rules" but "BillyGoatz holds a different political opinion to me" or "BillyGoatz dared to contradict me that nine million witches were genocided". Hence, censorship.
For the first part, that seems like it just needs an exception to the rule: if someone has a reply to a comment, they can always comment even if they are blocked. No need to give permanent commenting power when blocked just to overcome this edge case that is inherently temporary.
For the second part, someone breaking the rules is the lowest on my list of reasons to block someone; the mods are generally good about warning or banning when this occurs, so the person either fixes their behavior or get removed. If that's the reason for the block feature, better just remove it entirely. But:
If someone, as an example, brought up how one of their relatives was killed in the Holocaust and another user (civilly!) denied that it happened and tried to argue that their relative must have starved to death or died from some other cause, the first poster might block them. That, to me, feels fair, if they don't want to argue with them about it, or have them denying it if they bring it up again in the future, even in comments they can't see. And they may not want to deal with it at all, or have someone denying it in the comments. But I, personally, don't want to be in the business of judging whether someone's blocking is valid or not, and I don't think that it will be possible to enforce any validating for blocking. And I wouldn't see this as "censorship" as that person can still post anything they want on their own.
The point of the forum is to discuss complex things. If we prevent a blocked user from replying to a blocker's comments, we lose some discussion, some post, some potential understanding. If we allow the blocked user to reply to the blocker's comments - maybe the blocker will be a bit upset that holocaust deniers exist? They can't see the comment, so, who cares?
Even blocking is an unnecessary feature (in a well-moderated community) - if you don't like /u/libertAryanPedonazi, you can just look at a different part of the screen when he shows up, if he isn't spamming or anything.
Some people just can’t see eye to eye and the argument goes on but nowhere. Pre committing not to speak is probably best for all parties involved.
More options
Context Copy link
Let us consider an example then, A blocks B, A makes a post, B responds to it (hidden to A). Now A is stuck, others see the response but not them and they can't properly defend their post. What if A posts something, then C posts B's shitty argument that A has already dealt with and blocked B over; now they have to do it again? What was the point of the block then?
I don't work this way and I think most other people do not either. This is a theoretically possible but practically impossible ask. I don't habitually check usernames first, and I have no desire to manually sanitize a thread with perhaps thousands of comments every week. Blocking is a nice QoL feature for this.
Which is fine. If you block someone, you're choosing to not defend or respond to their arguments. There's no need to deny the rest of us the ability to see them!
Then C gained from reading A's argument, and B is free to block C if they want!
"How people work" in many senses, especially complex intellectual ones, is very contingent on intent and culture. While the presence of disgusting, taboo material that one can't bear to contemplate or look at is universal, the content of said material is not. Which suggests that, in any particular case, a person (or culture) can choose to not care. And if you can't, you're more or less 'in the thrall of your culture', as opposed to 'mechanically not working like that' (not that that's better!). However, most people could not care, by intent, tbh. The purpose of being offended / pissed off, is to be so things that are harmful in some way - but not looking at offensive text on a forum is a great way to not know what it its, and thus act less competently in relation to it in the future - particularly problematic if there is something morally wrong with it, and an individual block doesn't serve any purpose in that case.
That's a mischaracterization, my intent with a block is to opt out of conversations with someone. They're free to make their arguments with anyone else, to post them anywhere else.
I'm not exactly looking to deal with someone I've blocked in perpetuity at second hand.
I'm a little confused with where you went, I meant that, mechanically, ignoring people manually takes some minor effort that only causes annoyance, like being approached on the street for various stupid stuff. Yeah, theoretically I can just ignore everyone who seems like they're trying to con me, but that requires me to observe and process who they are and what they're asking before I refuse them. In the same way, I can't just "look at a different part of the screen" for free, I have to observe and process and then look away.
Yeah, nah, I don't need to listen to the arguments of xXpuppykickerXx, I'm good in my views on animal cruelty, you are overrating the power of an obscure internet forum. They're free to make their arguments to everyone else though, go right on ahead, but I don't have the inclination to explain that I really do like puppies and don't want them kicked. I wouldn't even block them just for the username, but maybe if they made it their hobby horse here; I think that's a reasonable ask.
You can do it easily by never responding to them.
Even if ShitHead2941 keeps following you and replying to every your post, what exactly is he "winning"?
Are you afraid that other mottizens will see that you never answer him and think that ShitHead2941 completely demolished you with facts and logic?
Several people, including the mods, have brought up weaponized blocking being used to get in the last word of an argument, so I don't think I'm going on out on a limb alone here to say it's a real thing that bad actors will try to use to their advantage. Ceding the last word completely wouldn't even require facts and logic then since, of course, there will be no response at all from them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link