10 ms·

This is partly what is happening. Reading in out of the loop subreddit the trigger is Victoria but the problem is different. The one I see as one of the biggest

This is partly what is happening. Reading in out of the loop subreddit the trigger is Victoria but the problem is different. The one I see as one of the biggest problems is. The unpaid volunteers aren't given the tools necessary to handle moderation of subreddits by reddit corporate. The tools moderators use comes from third parties and volunteers. [0] As an outsider I have understand why they are angry, trying to create safe spaces by sweeping(and inconsistent) bans of subreddits but not giving the tools to moderators to keep their subreddits clean. [0]https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_was_riama_along_with_a_number_of_other_large/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_wa...

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need. I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool. My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic, by punishing those who refuse to stay on topic.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Indeed. I think I read once that HN weights votes or comment positions by how often someone is drawn in by political "honey pot" stories. I don't know if it's true, but it at least suggests less drastic alternatives to banning for voting.
    - chc 11y ago
      That sounds like the same basic idea -- moderators putting a mark on posts that basically says, "An upvote for this is a negative contribution to the community." Is the problem with the general idea, or with one specific detail which could be modified in implementation (banning versus ignoring votes)?
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        The entire idea is problematic, massively, in that it allows for covert manipulation of a community. Why are a small handful of unaccountable people determining what is a "negative contribution", on the sly no less, when the whole reason for the existence of karma systems is to do that organically and by consensus? More importantly, what does such a system accomplish via deception that flattening such posts in a visible and accountable way does not?
        NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
        > Why are a small handful of unaccountable people determining what is a "negative contribution", on the sly no less On some of the smaller (but not tiny) subreddits, a submission can be both against the rules and plainly a bad idea as it pollutes the subreddit's goals. But because voting is anonymous, no matter how much everyone complains about them being upvoted, no matter who weighs in and admonishes people to stop upvoting the garbage, it still occurs. Over time, people submitting good content stop doing so, and people who submit bad content start doing it more. Vicious circle. Mods can't just delete those posts either, because this reddit gets pissy that they're playing favorites. It would be better if the mods were able to say "if you think this is upvoteworthy for this subreddit, you are no longer welcome here". Instead of each subreddit being some big generic free-for-all, they could stay on topic. Could get rid of alot of fluff. And you could do it without those being banned being able to claim it was for personal animosity.
        Perceval 11y ago
        > Mods can't just delete those posts either, because this reddit gets pissy that they're playing favorites. You absolutely can, and it's easy to do so. I moderate a small sub, and you can remove individual posts with the click of a button if you don't think they're a quality contribution. But beyond that, AutoModerator allows you to automatically remove posts according to criteria that you set up in advance. You can ban certain sites, titles with certain keywords, certain types of content, posts from certain users, and so on. It makes moderation much, much easier. There is always the problem that users will discover the filters and revolt if the mods haven't been transparent about filters. /r/technology users threw a fit when they discovered that the mods had been filtering stories with NSA in the title. Lots migrated over to /r/futurology as a result. > It would be better if the mods were able to say "if you think this is upvoteworthy for this subreddit, you are no longer welcome here". Banning 100s or 1000s of users in one fell stroke for having upvoted a single low-effort post would be far more disruptive and unjust than simply removing the offending post.
  - chc 11y ago
    I don't know, in my experience, Reddit is much more rife with low-quality posting and bandwagoning than moderator abuse. It happens on rare occasions, but most accusations of moderator abuse I've seen have turned out to be nothing more than some first-world anarchists trying to stick it to the man and a bunch of other people bandwagoning on. Meanwhile, most subreddits with more than 10k posters are just awful because it's so hard for moderators to actually moderate the community (see, for example, all the true* subreddits that have sprung up just to create less popular versions of popular subs).
    - mcuk2k 11y ago
      I read a few subreddits that might be considered outsiders. I get the impression that Reddit is slowly being subverted. Subverted by the sort of people that might have a strong voice on Tumblr and Twitter. Slowly censoring anything that's undesirable to their world view.
      - mingus68040 11y ago
        Being "subverted" by a different community would be the best possible outcome for reddit. It's a proud soapbox for white supremacists and misogynists to virulently spread hatred under the guise of "free speech". If this "community", seemingly comprised entirely of self-entitled white men in their 20s, were scattered to the winds tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
        shubb 11y ago
        I don't disagree but there is a beautiful irony to posting that here.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
      I was banned from r/history a few months ago. The moderator was attempting to humiliate me and added flair to my comments. I turned flair off. Then the moderator abused the stylesheets to hardcode flair that I couldn't turn off... That's against reddit's own rules, and the admins claim they will ban moderators from reddit sitewide for that. I went to the admins, they made him turn it off... and 1 minute later I was banned. The admins never banned him. Mod abuse occurs all the time. There's just nothing to be done about it, and there's no point in whining so you never much hear of it.
  - cma 11y ago
    Since a moderator can kill an entire post, nullifying "the only control that a user has over content" anyway, is it really going out on that big of a limb to allow moderators to ban people who, say, upvoted child porn to the top of r/politics?
    - ObviousScience 11y ago
      Of course not. But we both know that your fanciful hypothetical is not how that tool will be used in over 99.999% of cases, because that kind of thing almost never happens, while moderator abuse often does. Just because there are cases where a tool can be used well doesn't mean that introducing it in to a system rampant with corruption and abuse won't make things worse.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Moderators can't disappear posts outright, they can only remove the links from their respective communities. If someone has the link, it still can be interacted with in the usual way. The hypothetical you chose is disgusting, unnecessary, and impossible in the real world. Arguments to child porn I think are the modern equivalent of godwin's law - the moment it gets brought up, all productive discussion stops and is replaced by emotion.
      - cma 11y ago
        Moderators can ban people for posting things. OP was talking about banning people for upvoting things. Your point about the link being removed vs the content doesn't fit. Let's say it just partially bans them and still lets them post stuff that won't make it to the actual page, but if anyone has the link they can see it. Is that really a meaningful distinction?
        Karunamon 11y ago
        Yes, because the latter doesn't stifle discussions already in progress. It's the difference between saying "you can't talk about this here" and "you can't talk about this at all".
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
    > Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, 1. That's the discussion that should have occurred... debate on the merits of the idea. 2. Mods already ban people, which is the problem. They get rid of people they like, whether or not there is cause for it. This would be mods banning people whose names they don't even know for objectively wrong behavior. So yes, I think it would be a good idea. At the very least, the experiment could have been run in a few test subreddits. Argue more, overreact less.
- JanneVee 11y ago
  Well, nothing says that it should be a democracy. But there is discord how moderators manage their communities and what support reddit could add. e.g. there are subreddits that have removed downvoting through CSS, so it is still possible to downvote with apps or changing the CSS. It should be possible to add that as a setting to the subreddit that makes it impossible to downvote. But like I said it isn't a democracy, reddit can decide to not implement that and explain it to the mods why not.
- brazzlemobile 11y ago
  To be fair you used to post some really antagonistic and trollish comments. Maybe you still do. You're not exactly well known for your agreeable and altruistic behavior.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago

I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need. I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool. My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic, by punishing those who refuse to stay on topic.

Karunamon 11y ago
Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Indeed. I think I read once that HN weights votes or comment positions by how often someone is drawn in by political "honey pot" stories. I don't know if it's true, but it at least suggests less drastic alternatives to banning for voting.
  - chc 11y ago
    That sounds like the same basic idea -- moderators putting a mark on posts that basically says, "An upvote for this is a negative contribution to the community." Is the problem with the general idea, or with one specific detail which could be modified in implementation (banning versus ignoring votes)?
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      The entire idea is problematic, massively, in that it allows for covert manipulation of a community. Why are a small handful of unaccountable people determining what is a "negative contribution", on the sly no less, when the whole reason for the existence of karma systems is to do that organically and by consensus? More importantly, what does such a system accomplish via deception that flattening such posts in a visible and accountable way does not?
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
        > Why are a small handful of unaccountable people determining what is a "negative contribution", on the sly no less On some of the smaller (but not tiny) subreddits, a submission can be both against the rules and plainly a bad idea as it pollutes the subreddit's goals. But because voting is anonymous, no matter how much everyone complains about them being upvoted, no matter who weighs in and admonishes people to stop upvoting the garbage, it still occurs. Over time, people submitting good content stop doing so, and people who submit bad content start doing it more. Vicious circle. Mods can't just delete those posts either, because this reddit gets pissy that they're playing favorites. It would be better if the mods were able to say "if you think this is upvoteworthy for this subreddit, you are no longer welcome here". Instead of each subreddit being some big generic free-for-all, they could stay on topic. Could get rid of alot of fluff. And you could do it without those being banned being able to claim it was for personal animosity.
        Perceval 11y ago
        > Mods can't just delete those posts either, because this reddit gets pissy that they're playing favorites. You absolutely can, and it's easy to do so. I moderate a small sub, and you can remove individual posts with the click of a button if you don't think they're a quality contribution. But beyond that, AutoModerator allows you to automatically remove posts according to criteria that you set up in advance. You can ban certain sites, titles with certain keywords, certain types of content, posts from certain users, and so on. It makes moderation much, much easier. There is always the problem that users will discover the filters and revolt if the mods haven't been transparent about filters. /r/technology users threw a fit when they discovered that the mods had been filtering stories with NSA in the title. Lots migrated over to /r/futurology as a result. > It would be better if the mods were able to say "if you think this is upvoteworthy for this subreddit, you are no longer welcome here". Banning 100s or 1000s of users in one fell stroke for having upvoted a single low-effort post would be far more disruptive and unjust than simply removing the offending post.
- chc 11y ago
  I don't know, in my experience, Reddit is much more rife with low-quality posting and bandwagoning than moderator abuse. It happens on rare occasions, but most accusations of moderator abuse I've seen have turned out to be nothing more than some first-world anarchists trying to stick it to the man and a bunch of other people bandwagoning on. Meanwhile, most subreddits with more than 10k posters are just awful because it's so hard for moderators to actually moderate the community (see, for example, all the true* subreddits that have sprung up just to create less popular versions of popular subs).
  - mcuk2k 11y ago
    I read a few subreddits that might be considered outsiders. I get the impression that Reddit is slowly being subverted. Subverted by the sort of people that might have a strong voice on Tumblr and Twitter. Slowly censoring anything that's undesirable to their world view.
    - mingus68040 11y ago
      Being "subverted" by a different community would be the best possible outcome for reddit. It's a proud soapbox for white supremacists and misogynists to virulently spread hatred under the guise of "free speech". If this "community", seemingly comprised entirely of self-entitled white men in their 20s, were scattered to the winds tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
      - shubb 11y ago
        I don't disagree but there is a beautiful irony to posting that here.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
    I was banned from r/history a few months ago. The moderator was attempting to humiliate me and added flair to my comments. I turned flair off. Then the moderator abused the stylesheets to hardcode flair that I couldn't turn off... That's against reddit's own rules, and the admins claim they will ban moderators from reddit sitewide for that. I went to the admins, they made him turn it off... and 1 minute later I was banned. The admins never banned him. Mod abuse occurs all the time. There's just nothing to be done about it, and there's no point in whining so you never much hear of it.
- cma 11y ago
  Since a moderator can kill an entire post, nullifying "the only control that a user has over content" anyway, is it really going out on that big of a limb to allow moderators to ban people who, say, upvoted child porn to the top of r/politics?
  - ObviousScience 11y ago
    Of course not. But we both know that your fanciful hypothetical is not how that tool will be used in over 99.999% of cases, because that kind of thing almost never happens, while moderator abuse often does. Just because there are cases where a tool can be used well doesn't mean that introducing it in to a system rampant with corruption and abuse won't make things worse.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Moderators can't disappear posts outright, they can only remove the links from their respective communities. If someone has the link, it still can be interacted with in the usual way. The hypothetical you chose is disgusting, unnecessary, and impossible in the real world. Arguments to child porn I think are the modern equivalent of godwin's law - the moment it gets brought up, all productive discussion stops and is replaced by emotion.
    - cma 11y ago
      Moderators can ban people for posting things. OP was talking about banning people for upvoting things. Your point about the link being removed vs the content doesn't fit. Let's say it just partially bans them and still lets them post stuff that won't make it to the actual page, but if anyone has the link they can see it. Is that really a meaningful distinction?
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Yes, because the latter doesn't stifle discussions already in progress. It's the difference between saying "you can't talk about this here" and "you can't talk about this at all".
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
  > Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, 1. That's the discussion that should have occurred... debate on the merits of the idea. 2. Mods already ban people, which is the problem. They get rid of people they like, whether or not there is cause for it. This would be mods banning people whose names they don't even know for objectively wrong behavior. So yes, I think it would be a good idea. At the very least, the experiment could have been run in a few test subreddits. Argue more, overreact less.
JanneVee 11y ago
Well, nothing says that it should be a democracy. But there is discord how moderators manage their communities and what support reddit could add. e.g. there are subreddits that have removed downvoting through CSS, so it is still possible to downvote with apps or changing the CSS. It should be possible to add that as a setting to the subreddit that makes it impossible to downvote. But like I said it isn't a democracy, reddit can decide to not implement that and explain it to the mods why not.
brazzlemobile 11y ago
To be fair you used to post some really antagonistic and trollish comments. Maybe you still do. You're not exactly well known for your agreeable and altruistic behavior.