Conversation
Notices
-
PROPOSAL: Since it's become clear that the staff cares more about reducing complaints than about actually moderating things, I have for you a compromise solution that should generate the least amount of complaining: keep the word filter, but apply it only to those users who have already been warned about their language but kept using said language anyway. This will eliminate complaints about posts being deleted for language, and it will drastically cut down on the number of complaints about the existence of a word filter if it's used only in a disciplinary fashion. You may still get complaints from the users it is applied to, but the overall quantity of complaints related to the issue of language moderation should be the least with this method as compared to the other two methods.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:29:40 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel "Since it's become clear that the staff cares more about reducing complaints than about actually moderating things" Do you even realize how _little_ this is helping your case?
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:32:06 UTC from web-
@redenchilada I'm just calling it like I see it. You said yourself that the only reason you didn't enforce the rules was because of people complaining about you enforcing the rules. You *admitted* that people not complaining is MORE important to you than enforcing the rules.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:33:37 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel No, I care deeply about enforcing the rules. The wordfilter was an attempt to enforce the rules more evenly and prevent having to delete posts just for one swear. Yet all we've gotten from it is whining.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:34:49 UTC from web-
@redenchilada If all you see it as is whining, then you're no better than the people you claim "aren't listening to anything you say". The reason you're getting frustrated, the reason this has been going nowhere, is because you have not even allowed for the possibility of being wrong. You believe you are simply right, and because of it anyone who suggests you aren't must therefore be wrong and must be attacking your rightness.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:39:09 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I'm willing to listen now, if I wasn't earlier. Give me an alternative to the wordfilter that accomplishes the same goals (enforcing the language rule without having to delete an otherwise innocent post) without the drama and I'll happily throw it to widget and beg him to put it in.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:41:10 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Delete posts with a certain number of swears, and post the filter settings on the rules?
-
@redenchilada Missed this post, sorry about that. The solution I offered before of only applying the filter to users who have demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to comply with the language rules seems like the best idea honestly.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:03:06 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel Best idea, and it wouldn't be very hard to implement.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:03:55 UTC from web -
@toksyuryel But then we go back to the issue of inconsistent enforcement by the mods. Unless we're able to come up with a consensus on when enough is enough (and let's be honest, if we could, the half of this issue everyone else is bickering about wouldn't even be a problem) we'll have the same issue of the decision being inconsistently enforced and possible bias in the process. There's no objectively fair way other than applying it to everyone.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:05:53 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Turning to software won't solve the inconsistent moderation problem. It's a band-aid solution at best. Having better moderators is the only real solution to that.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:09:24 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I won't deny that a good moderation team makes all the difference. However, if the software can at least alleviate the issue slightly, wouldn't it be the better option? If we run into issues with this method of thinking later on, we'll go from there.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:14:30 UTC from web-
@redenchilada I don't believe so, because it can potentially hide issues with the moderation team and serve as a barrier to getting good mods in to replace the not so good ones.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:16:04 UTC from web -
@redenchilada Software should be a tool to help moderators moderate, not to give them the ability to have a shiny title while doing nothing.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:16:54 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel And as far as I can see, having the filter on by default _does_ help the moderators moderate. The last thing I want to see happen to this site is to have a class system in the userbase whereas some get their posts filtered and some don't. Those who do would only be that way because they repeatedly abused the language, yes, but shouldn't one use of a swear word be removed just as often as five?
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:22:23 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Maybe there could be two "modes" for it, with the default state having it flag any post that would have been filtered, and then having the filter mode for problem users?
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:29:14 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel If it's just "flagging", it's not doing its job as a wordfilter.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:29:54 UTC from web-
@redenchilada The job of the flagging mode is to quickly alert mods to a potential problem user. This makes it a tool that helps mods find problems that need solving. It can then be switched over to filter mode, or the user can be warned, or the false positive discarded, as the case may be.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:31:26 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel But I've already explained why having separate modes of filtering per-user is a bad idea.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:32:37 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Actually you just explained *that* you think it's a bad idea. You never explained why.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:33:31 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel The bit about the filter needing to catch first offenses as well as subsequent offenses wasn't a good enough reason?
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:35:03 UTC from web-
@redenchilada I don't believe that it needs to catch first offenses. Users deserve at least a warning. But having it flag such posts can alert you to the fact that there HAS been an offense, in which case you can verify that it's not a false positive and then issue a warning to the user.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:42:07 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I don't think a user needs to be "warned" if all that's going to happen is that a word or two is filtered. The intent of the filter is to change the use of the words from an offense to something that's tweaked out of the post before it goes live and removes the need for moderators to keep watch over it.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:44:47 UTC from web-
@redenchilada I think the word filter should go up on the test page...
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:46:26 UTC from web -
@redenchilada I'm already aware that's the intent, and I believe I've already pointed out that it will never fulfill that intent. There will always be false positives and workarounds, and that's not even getting into words that are bad based only on the context they are used in. You're still going to have to watch over posts, and you're going to have to spend the same amount of or more effort on massaging the filters any time there's a false positive or workaround.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:47:28 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I realize it won't solve all of our issues. I have no internet to stop watching for abuse of the filter. I'm also aware there will be issues with false positives. However, said false positives will be gradually removed over time, and the benefit of not having to deal with users who use the words but otherwise stay within the rules is worth having it. Of _course_ some words are only bad in context, but there are enough that are bad regardless of context to be of use.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:50:19 UTC from web
-
-
@redenchilada If you're curious about the game, you can play it on here. Or you can buy it along with a collection of other Indie Games by the guy who made Super Meat Boy and The Binding Of Isaac, being The Basement Collection. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/511754
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:47:28 UTC from web-
@casheycash I've got more than enough games on my plate at the moment, but thanks! (And thank you for cooperating.)
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:51:08 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@toksyuryel And this does help by evenly enforcing the language rule so we don't have issues with "X said this is fine" or "last time no one stopped me." Swearing is against the rules, this removes swears. Other issues like harassment or linking NSFW material can't be mechanically handled and still need human moderation. And I really, seriously object to your implications in this post, here.
-
-
-
-
@redenchilada Not just that, but have you ever been fishing and caught the whole lake? Something will get through human enforcement. And then, when the user is caught the next time, they'll play the "bluh bluh I did it before and and and" game.
-
-
-
@redenchilada Also, on the same subject, perhaps applying it to new accounts until they reach some threshold would also be a good idea to prevent abuse related to account creation (filtering links from new accounts like this would not be a bad idea either, come to think of it)
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:04:35 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I've considered the whole link filtering thing. Possibly prohibiting the user to post links in a notice, in their bio, anything, at least until their first notice. It'd reduce the effectiveness of spambots, if nothing else.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:07:22 UTC from web-
@redenchilada first notice has been posted*
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:07:46 UTC from web -
@redenchilada Maybe a one notice, and a one hour link delay...
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:08:49 UTC from web -
@redenchilada One notice might be too few. I'd say something in the range of 20-50 might be good for an automatic solution. For links, it might be better to have that get explicit human approval.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:11:01 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I've never liked the idea of limiting accounts like that. Then again, it might just be because one site I've been to in the past and hated used that.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:13:17 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@redenchilada Saying "X is a problem with the filter approach" isn't whining. Perhaps the majority were genuinely whining (in which case, I'm disappointed in them), but there were definitely genuinely grounded complaints in there.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:39:49 UTC from web-
@bitshift I... I guess I'm just upset. I'm not in the mood to deal with this place right now.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:41:40 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Yeah. When people annoy me to that point (rare, but it happens), I find it works out best for everyone, _including_ me, if I go and cool down first, rather than acting on impulse. Go chill out, play a game or something. The place isn't going to explode just because you took a break. *hugs*
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:45:27 UTC from web-
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:46:22 UTC from web
-
@anarchycarcino You're the Batman, I'm sure you can deal with it.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:47:07 UTC from web-
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:47:44 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@widget What do you think of the compromise I offered?
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:41:11 UTC from web -
@widget Seems about right. I'm certainly not going to consider the filter perfect, but it's probably a better option than no filter. (I am certainly going to complain, as civilly as I can, about edge case problems that seem fixable, though.)
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:42:49 UTC from web -
@widget And that's really all that it'd be fair to ask of you, so I'm perfectly happy with that. :)
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:48:28 UTC from web -
@widget Secondary administrator go!
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 01:51:37 UTC from web -
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:10:01 UTC from web
-
@anarchycarcino EWWWWW!
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:13:03 UTC from web
-
-
@widget Sounds like a good idea to me.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:10:36 UTC from web -
@widget Hm, idea. If it's going to be for just the first notice, suppose it auto-sandboxes the user if their very first post contained a link which gets filtered out?
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:13:27 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel Okay, now why have you blocked me?
-
@widget And to add on to that, if their first post contained a link which was filtered, it should continue to filter out all subsequent links.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:14:53 UTC from web
-
-
@widget Send them a HTTP 418 error.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:16:42 UTC from web-
@eaglehooves remind me what 418 means
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:16:59 UTC from web-
@redenchilada "server is a teapot" if I remember correctly.
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:17:26 UTC from web -
@redenchilada "I'm a teapot"
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:18:17 UTC from web -
@redenchilada HTTP 418 I'm a teapot
Wednesday, 05-Sep-12 02:18:48 UTC from web
-
-
-
