patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

patrick.net's 40 proposals »

10,740 registered users, 5 online now: indigenous, joeyjojojunior, MrEd, Strategist, sugarbean

All users can now moderate their own threads

By Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 3, 6:31am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   2 links   9,932 views   68 comments   watch (0)   share   quote  

OK, since I can't be everywhere and don't really want to moderate all disputes, each thread creator is now automatically the moderator of his own threads. That used to be just a Premium feature, but now it's available to everyone.

So if user A creates a new thread, then user A can also delete any comment on that thread.

How will this affect the forum overall? I suspect that it will result in people not commenting on threads owned by people they really don't like, because that comment could be deleted.

Conversely, people will probably greatly prefer to comment on threads owned by people they do like.

So maybe we'll get greater polarization in thread discussion. But hopefully we will also get fewer flame wars. I don't know exactly how it will turn out.

« First     « Previous     Comments 29-68 of 68     Last »

29   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 12:51pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Goran_K says

I definitely hope we don't vote Suburban Gal in as a mod. No offense, but she's a bit touchy, and would probably take the role too seriously.

Though I've done it before, and have even been the administrator of my own forums, I'm not asking nor am I volunteering to be one here.

Goran_K says

I actually think someone like elliemae, APOCALYPSE or Call It Crazy would do okay. Maintain the laid back nature of the board, but get rid of the outright trolls (12121212, tatupu70, etc).

I'm not quite sure about APOCAYPSE, but I think elliemae and Call It Crazy would make good moderators. So would David Losh.

30   Goran_K (4/4 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 19, 12:55pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

No, that's good. It alleviates some of my fears. Not sure I would stick around at a forum where you were a mod. Nothing personal, and no offense intended, but I get a weird vibe from your post.

31   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 19, 1:06pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Suburban Gal says

This is why you assign specific members as moderators.

But think of the dual benefit of the current system:

1. When someone deletes the latest comment on their thread, their thread falls down the page and gets less attention.

2. When you start your own thread, it starts at the top of the home page.

So it's kind of a market-based solution to a social problem.

But here's a slightly evil alternative: what if Premium members' comments can never be deleted, except if the thread owner is him/herself also a Premium member?

32   Goran_K (4/4 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 19, 1:10pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  


But here's a slightly evil alternative: what if Premium members' comments can never be deleted, except if the thread owner is him/herself also a Premium member?

That's capitalism. It's hard to disagree with but I'm biased.

33   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 1:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Goran_K says

Not sure I would stick around at a forum where you were a mod.

Actaully, I've always been a well-liked and well-respected moderator and administator of the forums I was a part of or ran.

Goran_K says

Nothing personal, and no offense intended, but I get a weird vibe from your post.

None taken.

34   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 1:33pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  


But here's a slightly evil alternative: what if Premium members' comments can never be deleted, except if the thread owner is him/herself also a Premium member?

There's a lot of debate among forum administrators whether or not posts should be deleted. Most will say no. I say no to post deletion.

I'm against post deletion because I believe that members should be held accountable for what they say. Not deleting posts creates an accurate history of forum posters. This way, should the administator be away for an extended period of time, he or she can refer back know and what happened if he or she wasn't on. It's better like that because it shows an administrator all the troubling posts and justifies a ban from the community should it come down to that. Secondly, deleted posts create gaps in threads of conversation, especially where [a lof of] quoting is involved, which forever distorts the conversations. I think this is dishonest and reprehensible and shouldn't be practiced in any responsible forum community. No posts should ever be deleted unless it's in very serious violation of forum rules, such as being obscene or defamatory, and I'm not aware of any responsible forum community that deletes people’s posts willy-nilly.

35   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 2:17pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I've moderated and managed several forum communities in the past and I'd have to say that it's pretty hard to have a community without moderation. A forum community WITHOUT proper moderation, whether it's from the administrator and/or other staff members, means chaos. If you don't care about the chaos, then the community can and will work. However, if you, as an administrator, allow all the chaos to ensue without proper moderation then it will be harder to reign in later on should you decide to reverse course.

Given there will be lively debates and discussion, some type of moderation is really needed. There is still things happening in the background that will need to be addressed and dealth with by someone and it's always best that the administrator or appointed moderators address and deal with stuff, as it shows other members of the forum community that people really do care and are tying their absolute best to have civil community where everyone is welcome and everyone's opinion matters.

Forum moderators also help promote interaction. A forum moderator should be posting new threads and addressing forum members through staff announcements regarding forum updates and situations. They should be monitoring the interchange of contributors and makes decisions regarding content and the direction of threads. They should enforce many rules of conduct and decorum and should remain totally objective and mainly serve as impartial enforcers. They should occasionally steer a discussion in another direction or offer input without fear of posing a conflict of interest. They should be helping out members with their queries and they should be keeping threads alive by asking questions.

In high traffic forums there are often regulars that are willing to work as moderators. I'm sure Patrick could find some good, trusted, loyal members to help him out as moderators.

36   Goran_K (4/4 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 19, 2:23pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Suburban Gal is beginning to frighten me.

37   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 2:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Goran_K says

Suburban Gal is beginning to frighten me.

I think you're overreacting.

All I'm trying to do is make Patrick see how he can run his forum community better and that he can and should delegate the task of moderating to his members since he feels it's too much for him to try to moderate everything himself. He already has the beginning of self-moderation abuse going on with Aussie Nerd. If he truly cares about his forum community and wants to grow it, then he'll change the way its run and make it an ever better community. Besides, all communities need structure.

38   Goran_K (4/4 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 19, 2:35pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Ahhhh!

39   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 2:40pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

When I was growing up, one thing my 5th grade teacher, Ms. Boyle, made us do was exchange papers and have our fellow classmates grade each others papers. I hated that because I'd constantly bring home improperly graded papers. Classmates would mark something wrong when it was, without a doubt, correct. My grades suffered all because certain classmates didn't like me and wanted to see me suffer. My mom eventually confronted the teacher and told her good teachers don't do this, they grade the work themselves or, in the very least, double check the work the students graded. Having the children exchange work and grade it themselves was lazy and not double checking was even lazier.

Well, having your forum members self-moderate, hoping it doesn't cause problems, and trusting them not to abuse it in the process is lazy. Nor is it the sign of a good administrator. It simply sends a message that he or she doesn't care about the community even though that really may not be the case. Most people don't want to be a part of this kind of posting community. So if Patrick wants to grow it, he may need to restart thinking self-moderation and the appointment of moderators.

40   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 19, 2:55pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

That said, here's a really good reason why self-moderation is bad and never really works:

Aussie Nerd deleted most of the comments in his thread about how the US was going to get gun control. He then posted about how he was getting tired of reading that rubbish and felt guilty about starting it to begin with considering how it turned out. Yes, some comments were ugly and people disagreed at times, but that is the nature of threads and posting on forums ESPECIALLY when it comes to certain topics. Gun control being one of those topics. IMHO, a poster needs to understand that when they put this kind of topic out there, it may not go the way they want it to but that doesn’t give them the right to go through and delete everyone’s posts. That is childish. It isn’t fair to everyone who invested in the discussion to begin with. If someone opens a can of worms with a post, then he or she should be prepared to accept what follows.

Personally, I’m rather upset that Aussie Nerd deleted my comments because I was emotionally invested in that discussion, as was everyone else. By deleting all the comments he ended up deleting, he was basically telling everyone that the time they took to make those comments was in vain, i.e. all for nothing. He acted selfish when he took it upon himself to mass delete comments. After all, who cares what I or anyone else had to say, right?

If he continues to do this and other members end up following suit, then people like myself who really want to be here and have meaningful discussions will end up leaving and never returning because everything we ever say ends up being deleted by someone else who doesn't like us, never likes what we have to say, etc... . Not only will we leave a forum community that turns out not appreciating us and what we have to say, but we will probably make sure we never recommend anyone we know to this forum community. And if word gets significantly out that a particular member or members of the forum community will end up deleting your comments because they don't like you or never like what you have to say, then it will make it almost possible for Patrick to ever grow his forum community because he'll always have that stigma attached to it. People want to join community forums where they feel valued and where they feel their opinion is going to matter. If a person's comments are constantly being removed by another member or members, then they have no reason to be there as a contributing memeber, do they?

41   David Losh   2012 Dec 20, 12:31am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Suburban Gal says

Aussie Nerd deleted most of the comments in his thread

Now the Aussie Nerd post is gone, and with it all of the comments. That was a good discussion, and a lot of people invested time into that post.

So, having some one delete the comments, then delete the post is really unfair.

There are some people who would delete comments that don't go along with the agenda they have, but there is a need to be able to get rid of some of the same comments made repeatedly on a thread by other individuals.

It's a hard thing to determine, but I was disappointed by the Aussie Nerd thread deletion.

42   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 12:44am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

What if I create an orphanage where deleted comments go, instead of having them really be deleted? But then how would anyone find them?

Or... say that when a comment gets deleted, you get an email of it, with the option to create a whole new thread out of your deleted comment with one click? Then you wouldn't have to type it in again, and you'd be in control of it.

43   errc (20/20 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 1:07am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

i think i prefer self regulation. Think before you hit submit. At first i poo pooed the ignore function, but now that i've had a chance to try it out, i actually like that best. I agree with those that dislike the whole deleting of posts thing. Can you make a hide function, so that the person that starts the thread can mark a post as offensive, and if those of us that like offensive shit still choose to read it, we can unhide it?

44   lostand confused (18/18 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 1:11am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

errc says

Can you make a hide function, so that the person that starts the thread can mark a post as offensive, and if those of us that like offensive shit still choose to read it, we can unhide it?

Yeah that is better than having everything deleted. I think Yahoo and even Youtube have the same policy, where they have a standard verbage saying,"Post hidden due to low ratings," or some such. But it allows you to click and view the post.

45   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 1:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

The problem with hiding comments instead of deleting is that some of them are spam. If the spam is available to be indexed by search engines, Patrick.net falls in the search rankings.

I kind of like the idea of giving the author of a deleted comment the one-click ability to create a new thread out of his deleted comment, because the attempted suppression of a comment is then likely to give that comment even greater visibility, so the post moderator may think twice.

Spammers generally don't read their email, so their comments will probably remain deleted.

46   Goran_K (4/4 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 1:34am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I think all of this could be solved by tinkering with the ignore system patrick (as I mentioned in Captain's thread). Self-moderation at its best IMO.

No need to have human capital, combing the forum, looking for trouble starters.

47   121212   2012 Dec 20, 3:03am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick are you dealing with the pedophile shit on you forum?

It seems like you have done nothing?

48   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 3:23am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I still don't see anything that could seriously be considered pedophilia.

There was a mock-Nazi poster in a humor thread, but it's not serious.

49   Ironman (137/145 = 94% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 4:03am  ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I think overall, the forum should be kept as it is. This is the one forum that I visit that allows the free back and forth discussion on topics. Yes, at times, they can get really heated and can have some pretty nasty exchanges, but at least everyone can have a chance to be heard.

Other forums I follow develop a "cult" mentality and if a member tries to offer an opposite opinion, the others go ballistic. Those forums don't allow free flowing ideas.

Regarding thread starters deleting posts, you get to learn who does that and just stay away from their threads. They choose to delete any comment that they don't agree with. Then why start the thread in the first place if you can't handle the responses??

The bottom line, you need some thick skin if you are going to participate in an online forum...

50   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 4:13am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I am gonna do that thing where deleting a comment mails the commenter the option to make a new thread out of the deleted comment.

Seems fair enough that you should get the chance to bring a good comment back from the dead after you put work into making your point.

Maybe I should call them Zombie Comments. Zombies are popular lately. And it should probably have a link back to the point it was deleted from.

51   121212   2012 Dec 20, 5:53am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  


I still don't see anything that could seriously be considered pedophilia.

There was a mock-Nazi poster in a humor thread, but it's not serious.

So your choosing to ignore it! You think insinuating( or worse) pedophilia on sandy hook children linked with nazi propaganda is acceptable?

52   121212   2012 Dec 20, 5:54am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

and what about this Patrick?

zzyzzx: says

http://patrick.net/?p=1219883

"It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me."

53   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 6:13am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

You must mean this quote:

http://patrick.net/?p=1219883&c=912299#comment-912299

You think that's pedophilia? Pedobear is an internet meme used to mock pedophiles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedobear

Maybe it's in bad taste, but it's not like zzyzzx is asking anyone to post child porn.

54   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 20, 6:32am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  


I kind of like the idea of giving the author of a deleted comment the one-click ability to create a new thread out of his deleted comment, because the attempted suppression of a comment is then likely to give that comment even greater visibility, so the post moderator may think twice.


Or... say that when a comment gets deleted, you get an email of it, with the option to create a whole new thread out of your deleted comment with one click? Then you wouldn't have to type it in again, and you'd be in control of it.


I am gonna do that thing where deleting a comment mails the commenter the option to make a new thread out of the deleted comment.

Without the original post that starts the thread and the comments that succeed it, it really doesn't make much sense to make a new thread out of a deleted comment.

55   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 20, 6:41am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

David Losh says

It's a hard thing to determine, but I was disappointed by the Aussie Nerd thread deletion.

David Losh says

So, having some one delete the comments, then delete the post is really unfair.

I agree. It's too bad the whole thread can't be restored prior to Aussie Nerd's post deletions.

56   Suburban Gal   2012 Dec 20, 6:45am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

errc says

i think i prefer self regulation.

Goran_K says

Self-moderation at its best IMO.

Call it Crazy says

I think overall, the forum should be kept as it is

Honestly, I think it should be put to a vote among the forum members to see what the majority wants.

57   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 20, 9:33am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Suburban Gal says

Without the original post that starts the thread and the comments that succeed it, it really doesn't make much sense to make a new thread out of a deleted comment.

Giving a link back to that context will help.

You raised a legitimate point. People get mad when a well-reasoned comment of theirs is deleted. This will be a way to keep that comment alive, and protect it from the guy who deleted it.

58   elliemae   2012 Dec 20, 1:59pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

121212 says

So your choosing to ignore it! You think insinuating( or worse) pedophilia on sandy hook children linked with nazi propaganda is acceptable?

I would think that you would have given this up by now. By continually reposting this, you've given it a life. If "your" so outraged, ignore it.

59   David Losh   2012 Dec 21, 12:10am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Capt Shaddup put up a post about Obama that looked interesting, but when I read through the comments it was just a bash fest between everybody.

OK, I can walk away from the thread, but if there is the option to delete comments, or even the post, there is nothing there to see. People are responding to deleted comments, and it would skew that picture of the "discussion."

I think posts, and comments should stand, and if there is a need for moderation, that moderation should be requested, from you, because it is your web site.

Sorry, but I just don't see how self moderation would work.

I do see a need for zapping some commenters, but that should be an arms length judgement call.

60   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 21, 5:10am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I've made Premium users' comments protected from deletion, unless the thread moderator is also Premium.

If you're willing to pay the $5/month to be Premium, you should get at least that much protection, or conversely, you should get total control over your thread.

Sure, this might cause an arms race as all the users sign up to be Premium, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

61   Tenpoundbass (104/104 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 21, 5:35am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Can I buy dislikes? To use on other people with out actually attributing them to a post? Also the ability to pay off dislikes to expunge them.

You could make dislike derivatives and sell them on the open market.
And for the second scenario they could be dislike credits.
Or flip credits, where every dislike credit you get you get two likes.

Hey this is starting to sound like Washington.

62   Peter P   2012 Dec 21, 5:39am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

You could make dislike derivatives and sell them on the open market.

Perhaps like-dislike swaps and swaptions. Or Total Dislike Swaps.

63   Peter P   2012 Dec 21, 6:21am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick, can we also get a count of ignores in the user profile? It is the other side of "Ignored by"

It may be helpful to see how many people a user is ignoring.

64   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 21, 6:39am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

Can I buy dislikes?

They are free! A friend at Facebook pointed out that Facebook is completely lacking in negative feedback. But that just reminds me of real estate advertising, where you can say anything you want, as long as it helps sell the house and get that commission quickly.

Peter P says

Patrick, can we also get a count of ignores in the user profile? It is the other side of "Ignored by"

OK, it's at the bottom of the extended profile for now:

http://patrick.net/about.php?user_ID=1

I need to clean that whole thing up, but I want to get polls usable first.

65   Peter P   2012 Dec 21, 6:44am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick, how do I manage the ignore list? I ignored maybe 1 but it says I am ignoring 10.

66   Peter P   2012 Dec 21, 7:01am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

Patrick, how do I manage the ignore list? I ignored maybe 1 but it says I am ignoring 10.

Nevermind. Found it.

I seems that the current "count" is really just my numeric user id.

67   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 21, 7:06am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

I seems that the current "count" is really just my numeric user id.

Was a bug. Should be fixed now.

68   Patrick (323/323 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 21, 7:07am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

how do I manage the ignore list?

For the benefit of others who don't know -- it's at the bottom of your profile, under your friends list.

« First     « Previous     Comments 29-68 of 68     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users   about   contact  
#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
housing crash   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   patrick.net on twitter   random post  
please recommend patrick.net to the criminally insane