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 -
The proposal already concedes that this isn't the case, it's in the text:
And it may be even stricter, from Zorba:
How will you police all this? But:
Nobody has a monopoly on posts here, nobody is "punished" by not responding to something directly.
I don't think that people I block should have their posting restricted site-wide, I know where the report button is for that, I just want a way to figuratively walk away from them. Giving them a permanent platform to breath down my neck and directly reply to everything scot-free is the opposite. Are you going to step up your modding to compensate?
If I block you, under your model, it means you cannot respond to my posts at all. That is constraining your ability to participate in discussions. It's a small constraint, but it is allowing me to restrict your ability to interact not just with you but with other people.
Not being able to see their posts after you block them is exactly that. This is why I would prefer this option to the one @ZorbaDTHut is proposing, but Zorba's seems reasonable also, albeit requiring more work from us. As I understand it, under his model, if you block someone, they are warned that anything they write in reply to your posts had better not be an attempt to draw you into engagement, which includes passive-aggressive digs, baiting, subtexting, etc.
Well, with what Zorba is proposing, yes, we would be modding people harder when they reply to someone who has blocked them.
What it does not mean is that if you hate the guy who's always going on about Da Joos, you can block him and he can never talk about Da Joos in threads you started again. This may be distressing to you, but you don't get to control how other people post here, even to you. You have only the option to control what you see and respond to, and ask the mods to enforce the rules.
I have brought up the option of responding to other people in those threads, which would mean no restrictions on interactions with anyone else at all.
If a blocked person cannot see these responses at all, isn't it literally impossible to draw them into any sort of engagement? I don't think it can be to benefit the blocker. It sounds more like extra tone policing, so that you better not use this unfettered platform to get your punches in. On one hand, it seems to acknowledge that having this permanent unanswerable platform has its perils, but on the other it looks like a troll's hunting rules; after all, everything gets that much easier when the target can't respond.
I would ask you to consider what this sounds like from my perspective, coming from a mod. I know you all hold yourselves to high standards, and stricter when it comes to your own persons, but I'm sure you also know that people have different tolerances, and that those tolerances can change when you have no way to walk away from someone (and no, giving someone an unfettered platform over you in perpetuity is not walking away in my view) or put a stop to it. A normal user can only hope that you will enforce their view of the rules when someone is being needlessly antagonistic, but that's different when you're not a part of it. You can end up setting the floor awfully high here.
If they can't reply to you but can reply to other people who reply to you, that's only a small constraint, but I would still prefer that you simply be unable to see their replies. Earlier, however, you seemed to want them to be unable to reply at all in any thread you started.
If blocking them means you can't see what they post, how do they have an unfettered platform over you?
Any other solution means you get to control not what you see, but what other people can post and see.
That's true, but I think now that it is probably too weaponizable and abusable, even if in my idealized world it might be fine. Many people have brought it up as a big issue to them.
It's not completely unfettered, because the rules still apply and others can respond. But generally, if someone makes a confrontational reply or contests some point, and there's no response, it somewhat implies that they don't have a response to it. It cedes the last word to the blockee, which we know is a problem because people are abusing the block to get the last word in and that's bad. Someone can make the same contention in another post and it doesn't haven't quite the same effect, there is less of an onus to respond, this is just a phenomenon of the posting medium I think. It may not be seen by the blocker, but much of this arguing is also for bystanders, who will see a lack of a response.
Let me bite that bullet: yes. If that's unacceptable to you then it is what it is. It's just partly my opinion, ideals, and what I find acceptable, but I also do believe that it is the better of some not very great options. But who knows, maybe the crowdsourced moderation will empower you mods a hundred fold, and every troll will be struck from the site to much wailing and gnashing of teeth while peace and harmony reigns, and we will all laugh that we ever argued about how blocking should work.
The difference is that the blocker made the choice to let the blockee have the last word. That's the price you pay for blocking someone.
You can control your experience, not anyone else's.
That is unacceptable to me.
I don't think any blocking system is ideal and of course we're never going to get rid of all trolls and baiters and harassers. But yes, you need to live with the fact that people you block don't get silenced or restrained the way you'd like. What you want does not sound like "I want to be able to walk away," because you know, anyone can already do that. Of course we're all human, so an "ignore" feature (as I would prefer to call it) will make it easier to walk away from people you'd otherwise inevitably be tempted to respond to.
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