2 ms·

I wasn't objecting to anything, I just thought the phrasing was rather maladroit, and commented on it because it was a humourous grammatical mistake. I am than

by zeveb 9y ago

I wasn't objecting to anything, I just thought the phrasing was rather maladroit, and commented on it because it was a humourous grammatical mistake. I am thankful that you linked to the post 9 months ago that dang objected to; that's definitely an improvement on the previous HN moderation pattern of reprimanding without a link. Is there any chance that you could expose to users a way to see what moderators have objected to in the past about themselves? I think this sort of individual openness would go a long way. edit: Also, it'd help one keep track of what the HN moderators are concerned about.

dang 9y ago
The problem is that when humorous grammatical mistake overlaps with divisive personal and social issue, lightheartedness gets lost. We've been thinking about building software support for something like what you're suggesting here. Not sure yet. But we'd like to give users more of a meaningful feedback loop, instead of generic reprimands, so there's a practical path to improvement. If you'd like to say more about what you think would accomplish that, we'd read it with interest. The reason we don't often include specific links in moderation replies is that it's significantly more work, and these things already consume a huge amount of time, energy, and spirit.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > If you'd like to say more about what you think would accomplish that, we'd read it with interest. I could imagine something like the current 'upvoted submissions / comments' section on the profile page, e.g. 'moderated submissions / comments'. I assume that your moderation tools are already tracking this sort of thing for you, because y'all often comment, 'as we've already asked you,' reaching back months or years into the past. You must already have something like this, due to how y'all comment in response to posts (presumably you don't have photographic memories!). Although I'm thinking of a private implementation, lobste.rs is also doing some interesting work with public moderation: all moderator actions are public & documented with an ostensible justification by the moderator. That is at least completely open: User X did Y on date Z; he did A on date B; in response to this Moderator 1 executed action 2 on date 3 (and that action could itself be reviewed by some higher authority). > The reason we don't often include specific links in moderation replies is that it's significantly more work, and these things already consume a huge amount of time, energy, and spirit. I understand that, but please consider the spirit of someone who is implicitly threatened with a ban by someone in a position of power. He has no idea why he's offended, how often he's offended, and he's scared for what will happen: he's invested time to build up a reputation, and the moderator stands ready to destroy all that. We need moderators online much as we need police in the real world — but interactions online with moderators are just as stressful as interactions with police offline. This is all completely orthogonal to whether or not the moderator's actions are fair or correct. There's a strong power imbalance, and I think it's fair for moderators to be cognizant of that. There's a huge difference between 'as I asked you once three years ago and once two years ago, but you can't really be expected to remember' and 'as we've asked you twice this week,' even though both are multiple warnings. Pointing out the magnitude of the issue can go a long way to reducing the stress of the situation to its appropriate level.

by zeveb 9y ago

dang 9y ago

The problem is that when humorous grammatical mistake overlaps with divisive personal and social issue, lightheartedness gets lost. We've been thinking about building software support for something like what you're suggesting here. Not sure yet. But we'd like to give users more of a meaningful feedback loop, instead of generic reprimands, so there's a practical path to improvement. If you'd like to say more about what you think would accomplish that, we'd read it with interest. The reason we don't often include specific links in moderation replies is that it's significantly more work, and these things already consume a huge amount of time, energy, and spirit.

zeveb 9y ago
> If you'd like to say more about what you think would accomplish that, we'd read it with interest. I could imagine something like the current 'upvoted submissions / comments' section on the profile page, e.g. 'moderated submissions / comments'. I assume that your moderation tools are already tracking this sort of thing for you, because y'all often comment, 'as we've already asked you,' reaching back months or years into the past. You must already have something like this, due to how y'all comment in response to posts (presumably you don't have photographic memories!). Although I'm thinking of a private implementation, lobste.rs is also doing some interesting work with public moderation: all moderator actions are public & documented with an ostensible justification by the moderator. That is at least completely open: User X did Y on date Z; he did A on date B; in response to this Moderator 1 executed action 2 on date 3 (and that action could itself be reviewed by some higher authority). > The reason we don't often include specific links in moderation replies is that it's significantly more work, and these things already consume a huge amount of time, energy, and spirit. I understand that, but please consider the spirit of someone who is implicitly threatened with a ban by someone in a position of power. He has no idea why he's offended, how often he's offended, and he's scared for what will happen: he's invested time to build up a reputation, and the moderator stands ready to destroy all that. We need moderators online much as we need police in the real world — but interactions online with moderators are just as stressful as interactions with police offline. This is all completely orthogonal to whether or not the moderator's actions are fair or correct. There's a strong power imbalance, and I think it's fair for moderators to be cognizant of that. There's a huge difference between 'as I asked you once three years ago and once two years ago, but you can't really be expected to remember' and 'as we've asked you twice this week,' even though both are multiple warnings. Pointing out the magnitude of the issue can go a long way to reducing the stress of the situation to its appropriate level.