Journal FortKnox's Journal: Slashdotters Anonymous Privacy At Risk?? 88
I know you guys don't like to discuss Slashdot as a whole on the site (and the slashcode). But after this comment by Jamie, admitting to author moderation and the infamous "bitchslapping" script, and the changes to 2.2 that weren't discussed (authors can see IP and subnet of all posts, including anonymous posts, and can sort based on them), I'd like to know what the slashdot population thinks of the changes? Do they feel that their anonymous privacy is being threatened? I understand this is a privately owned site, but it is always known to believe in "free speech", and "privacy", and "Your rights online". What is the community's reaction to the "unnamed changes"??
I submitted this as an "AskSlashdot". We'll see how fast it is rejected...
Addendum: 1 minute! I think its a record for me ;-)
Addendum 2: Comments are enabled, and michael has added to the conversation. Check it out!
I submitted this as an "AskSlashdot". We'll see how fast it is rejected...
Addendum: 1 minute! I think its a record for me
Addendum 2: Comments are enabled, and michael has added to the conversation. Check it out!
I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
How unfairly? Try going from 40 to 23 karma in the space of less than 2 weeks.
Essentially it started with a post by me calling
The irony here is even having an on topic post modded down and up so fast it was rather funny to watch. So, rather than get pissed that some a**hole(s) out there are being just that, I created another account.
What happened? less than 150 post, hit the karma cap on thanksgiving...leading to my lovely sig.
I've proved my point, to myself and all who read my comments (if at all).
Judging from the moderation on some of my best comments (wish I had a link) you notice that the "crack smoking" moderators are outnumbered by the non-CSM's.
My favorite went something like 4 insightfuls, 2 funny's 2 underated, 2 overrated, 1 flamebait, 1 troll (I think)...it wound up with around 12 points worth of moderation...all on one comment.
What strikes me as "wrong" with the system is this:
+2 comments get there for a reason and yes there is "bonus" abuse. However, I think the poster who posts at +2 should be given the benefit of the doubt, don't you?
So, I'd like to see +2 comments modded up, if they deserve it, but to prevent moderator abuse, only allow negative moderation to be effective after 3 or 4 "modding down" marks.
Reason: none of the newbie moderators nor the experienced CSM's seem to read the FAQ of "don't mod down what you don't agree with" and "don't mod down to punish"...ahem, never happen? just remember 40 down to 23, most moderation took place in literally less than a minute!
Heh, as a "tribute to CSM's" my sig at one time said "help! help! I'm being repressed!"... gee, wonder where that came from.
It strikes me as odd that no one has thought of a abuse filter not only for trolls, but for moderators as well.
You see, trolls can have their account "suspended" for a certain length of time as I understand from some of the -1 comments.
For moderators, I think, if more than 1/2 of your moderations (every 10 points, let's say) are marked as unfair...then how about "suspending" that account as well (i.e. no moderating for a month/year whatever the cycle, and for the # of unfair marks, apply those negative points to the moderator, perhaps?).
Anyone have any better ideas, I'd love to hear them.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
As long as you keep "speaking out on this topic" (aka, whining), you will probably continue to be modded down.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2)
Complaints, for the most part, should NEVER be modded down or otherwise edited, as long as they are relevant and supported by hard facts, and those who have made a valuable contribution to this "community" should be given a chance to make those complaints heard (via the +2 posting privilege), because that is exactly what Slashdot supposedly stands for - free speech and freedom of information. That's been the central theme of this site for a few years now, and will surely continue in that vein for some time.
And while it might sound like whining, and while you might think that it's uncalled for because we aren't in charge around here, please keep in mind that Slashdot has always promoted itself as a free and open forum to be used freely and openly by anyone with an opinion. If they can't stick to that model, then they need to stop promoting themselves as such. Slashdot IS run by a bunch of hypocritical ingrates who are only concerned with being "in charge." In reality, they care very little about what their audience thinks; this fact should be made known to everyone who frequents this site under the guise that they are going to be heard.
Now if you are so spineless as to turn your head to this - or even worse, defend slashdot - you don't deserve to even have a voice.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
But they are NEVER relevant. When I am reading a story about the new linux kernel (for example), complaints about moderation have no place. Moderation has no relationship whatsoever to the linux kernel, nor the arrest of Dmitry Skylarov, nor new patents granted to TIVO.
If you want to whine, make your own website, and link to it in your
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:3, Interesting)
My question to you is this...knowing that my complaint was VERY RELEVANT to the posted story, where else would you suggest that i post it?
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
If you talked to me rudely at my job, I'd be professional, for it is my job. You'd never see me jump outta form.
But I'm not getting paid for this, and I'm using my free time.
But if you are truely offended, I'll change it.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
So are we. For instance, I was IP banned and bitchslapped without ever breaking one.
We're asking for some openness, transparency, and forthcomingness. Post some Rules. Tell people you moderate, profile, monitor, flag & ban. And don't tell me you don't have time for new features [slashdot.org].
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's something to think about. I'm the guy who clicks on the ThinkGeek banner ad and buys the t-shirt and the rounded IDE cables. I'm the guys who clicked through to Penguin Computing and convinced the boss to have them set us up with 6 new web servers. I'm the guy who LINES YOUR FUCKING WALLET. And you have the nerve to try and blow me off when I have a complaint. That, my friend, is why you're *still* not a real journalist.
Huh? (Score:2)
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
The point is that you can put all these suspicions to rest by making Editor Moderation visible through messaging. Just fix the bug I link to in my sig.
If you choose not to, don't fool yourself into thinking we won't notice. Your audience isn't stupid, remember?
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
But anyway, back to the topic at hand. I've read all the 76 comments so far (at -1) and have a few comments to make. Except that I suck at written expression, and so am going to make a few random statements:
I've been reading /. since Jan 1999 (nearly 3 years), but have only posted 15 comments. Why? because /. is but one of many online communities I participate in, and I simply don't have the time/care enough to get more involved in it than reading the front page, and occasionally reading the +5 comments attached to a story. When I first started using /., I read the comments on far more stories than I do now. This is in part because (like many things), /. has become a victim of its own success - as a discussion site, it breaks down with too many users. As a weblog of cool sites and stories (News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.) it performs well. But the discussion part has attracted legions of trolls who (in an attempt to attract attention to themselves) ruin the quality of discussion. So slash had various anti-troll measures implemented, in an attempt to restore the quality of discussion (I read somewhere that one of the aspects (paradoxes?) of online discussion is that to maintain a community in which free discussion is encouraged, rules must be put in place to stop wasted discussion like trolls.)
Anyway, there has probably been misapplication of these tools occasionally. But more to the point, people want their posts to be seen, because they (like most people) like the sound of their voice. And so they get upset when their posts get moderated down (for whatever reason), and blame the moderation system. Now whether the /. mod system is better/worse than the k5 system is not something I'm going to argue, since the amount of traffic that k5 gets is not the same as /. (or so it seems). While /. is more open, in as much as you can view every comment, k5 is more open in as much as there isn't a threshold. (Wait, I am comparing the mod systems, bugger. Oh well). And so, people get pissed off about being modded down (and so losing their visibility) much more on /. than on k5.
Enough about k5. What I'm trying to say here, is that inequities in the /. mod system are in part because a) no mod system is perfect b) it tries to be very open, and stuff (note: my train of though was derailed here)
Anyway, guys, get over it. I sincerely doubt that /. is a good place to hold a meaningful discussion, simply because it's so big. It's not like your posts are really that important. Perhaps you should consider another discussion site, which, while it may be smaller, gives you a better chance of becoming a big-shot poster? ;-)
As for the claims of editor abuse of moderation, well, the editors are human too, and will almost certainly have biases (and egos - the censorware.org account (while not complete, and from only one side) shows this), and so are probably guilty of not being objective, but at least they try. As for CSMs, it's a well known fact that people don't read the docs. I'm on a mailing list which just had an influx of newbies, and it's amazing how many didn't bother to read the rules and guidelines which were posted to them when they joined. People are stupid/jerks, get over it.
Something else: this is the sort of discussion I like to read, since it's got a remarkable lack of trolling that makes it possible to read at -1. "Discussions" that are only readable at +2 (or more), are more just bunched of topic-related comments, since responses are filtered out (unless you click on the "## messages below your threshold" links). I don't, in part because (as I say above), /. is one of many fora which I read/participate in, and my time is limited. The net is vast (mmm, GitS), and there's plenty of discussion sites out there that cater for any taste imaginable, and no human could possibly read all of them.
Anyway, that's my poorly organised (and not really on-topic - but better here than in a story) diatribe. I probably won't make any more comments for the reasons above, but while the info stored by websites is important, there's better targets than /., where this argument is between people who've come to hate each other. Or something (this is more related to the yro comment).
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2)
Oh well as a free community we can't... oh wait a second these guys get PAID for this. And we pay for it by looking at ADs and contributing content.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
I disagree entirely with A_Non_Moose about +2 posters being given the "benefit of the doubt". In the real world, if you're nice to a person ten times and nasty to them once, what are you? An asshole. But on Slashdot, you're up nine karma. Slashdot's system is *far* more forgiving of abuses than the real world is, and kids like FortKnox who live on Slashdot (713 comments, christ!) need to get out more.
I was talking to a grad student the other day who's doing a thesis paper on Slashdot. I told her that one of the mistakes made when building the site was giving "karma" a name, because that made it a game. Guess what people, your self-worth is *not* dependent on what value is stored in Slashdot's users table under the karma field. The sole purpose of the moderation system is to make discussions readable. Other sites delete posts that are off-topic. We do not. But I never fail to be amazed at the people who spend all their time trying to fill discussions with garbage and then complaining that the system worked as it is supposed to.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
--does not delete comments
--makes all comments available to anyone who chooses to view them
--is more free than any other system with a comparable number of users
and calling it "censorship" is silly IMHO. When you can tell me about another forum which tolerates users like "The Turd Report" maybe Slashdot will have a competitor for the title of web-based discussion forum with the least censorship.
Try an experiment: go to kuro5hin.org, advogato.org, any random message board, and start posting "Turd Report" comments. Take note of the mean time before you're banned from the site.
I'm not claiming that Slashdot is perfect - no place is. But it is certainly one of the best. Most of that is due to Rob's dedication to avoiding censorship as much as possible, for which he gets thanked every day with a load of hatemail from lusers.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2)
Incidentally, I don't think he understands the point of moderation. HE may think he's posting intelligent things, but he's missing the point of being modded down; others clearly do not agree his self-assesment, which is pretty much the whole damn point of moderation.
I've been at 50 for the last two years, with arond 200 posts, and if I've figured out one thing, its that karma is not a right on a per post basis. It is the case, in many ways, that one or two bitter or whiny posts will ruin your rep and moderators will 'remember' you on subsequent posts, making it more difficult to get modded up. It's called 'just deserts', but I guess A_Non_Moose hasn't figured that out yet, or he'd have grinned and beared (or moosed, groan) it by now. Anyhow, don't stop stickin' up for the system - like anything else, it ain't perfect, but I'll take it over having to manage my own signal to noise ratio any day!
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
When Others don't agree, the point is that each Other has the same rights. When an editors has unlimited Rights, we in turn don't have any. It would be exceedingly simple to deliver a message to a user when an Editor had moderated them down, and it would stop all of this guesswork in it's tracks. You should be aware, by the way, that not every user has equal rights: when you're marked with the $rtbl flag, you cannot participate in moderation. You'll never get any notification that this has happened to you.
The opportunity to be open and honest about who is doing the moderation was addressed in a bug report on Sourceforge; the link is in my signature file.
You can brush people off as "too unpopular to be modded up", but without any means of verifying that, you'll excuse me while your half baked opinions make me giggle.
-
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2)
Well, it would depend on the velocity, but having spent a lot of time on k5 -- more then
Yeh, it would be 'censored' but its a completely transparent system, one that any 'trusted' user (basically anyone that posts a lot) can audit.
k5 gets one order of magnitude more hits. But 2 or 4 orders of magnitude fewer 'crap' posts. (there are also safety features to prevent automatic flooding. But unlike slashdot's obnoxious 20 second/2 minute rule and lameness filter, since they are actually applied intelligently and based on the human dependent mod system). In fact There are fewer 'zero' posts every week then there are front page stories.
The real problem with slashdot is that you seem to, basically, hold your readership in contempt (especially CmdrTaco). While other sites try to foster a real sense of community you (guys) seem to be actively discouraging it.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
When you are moderated down at K5, K5's system tells you who moderated you down, even if it was the Administrator. If you're moderated down at Slashdot, Slashdot sends you a message that says you were moderated down by a User, even if that User is an Editor.
Stop propping up straw men, I'm tired of disemboweling them. You can't compare yourself to those sites because their moderation and banning systems have accountability and yours doesn't. You refuse to add it. Read my sig.
for which he gets thanked every day with a load of hatemail from lusers.
Isn't there some love mail mixed in with that hate mail? There's got to be someone other than you who appreciates all the work he's doing.
I don't think people would be this upset about Slashdot if it wasn't something a lot of people cared about. That's a testament, as you say, to Rob's hard work. But if all he's getting now is hatemail, maybe he could try responding to it with some openness and documentation. Either that or he could add another automated tracking system to slashcode, maybe to weed out users who send him hatemail. Another slap in the face to his users, another artificial barrier, another way to make the Administration less human and less accessible. Maybe he could attach another snide comment to it like "Editors are Users too".
In the end, it's really his call.
-
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2)
That means making things so that you no longer have to "guess" what percentage of moderation is being done by the editors, nor having to "think" how many mod points you've spent in a given day.
Make that information publicly available. Have moderation history done by the editors listed in their user info. And fix [sf.net] the notification so that it makes a distinction between moderation done by editors and non-editors.
The more open things are, the better.
Hey now, let's not mock for number of comments (Score:1)
I too have posted over 700 comments, but on a day to day basis, I spend very little time posting, and most of it is when I'm stuck at work.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:2)
You come into my journal to call me a child for having over 700 comments posted?
Perhaps, when an intersting topic comes up, I post not only my opinions, but argue with others opinions? Maybe I like to defend my opinions?
You want to talk about childish, then lets speak of the censorware project, shall we?
I'd been DYING for authors to come in here and give their arguements so we can sort this crap out, but you come in here to insult me?
Who's being the child, michael?
You just proved to me what all the trolls say about you.
And as far as "getting out more", I have a well paying job, a wife, a son (next May), and a life.
Yeh, no kidding. (Score:2)
When they reimported all the old files into the DB I checked my old account. Almost 4,000 comments. michal is basicaly insulting everyone who uses slashdot 'alot' instaid of just posting boring and poorly thought out stories.
I can't believe it... (Score:2)
Hmm... I wonder what would happen if he found out that I was the "michael is a wanker" troll. Ooops. =)
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
I guess I am an infant since I have well over 1000 posts accumulated over the last say two or three years. Okay, in 900 days is 1000 posts honestly that much? So ive read slashdot daily and commented heavily in every 50-100 articles, BFD.
Jeremy
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
Out of all the complaints on slashdot about slashdot, if you replace those with "complaints about censoring/law/patents", and replace JonKatz bashes with "Microsoft Bashes", what do you have? (If you're really dense, the answer is 'slashdot articles')
Just because I'm complaining about something not the norm, should I (or the parent) be called an "asshole"??
BTW - mike, your professionalism needs some tweeking (if you want to get technical you are at your job speaking to your audience). I hope your future employers look at your posts to your 'clients'.
Hello? Pot? This is kettle. (Score:1)
I don't think micheal understood Moose's comment at all. He wasn't complaining that he got modded down. He was complaining that he got modded down because he was logged in as A_Non_Moose, rather than based on his posts. THAT is the issue.
Re:I've spoken on this very topic many times: (Score:1)
I've actually submitted the solution to this problem many times before, but I will do so again for the record:
When moderating, moderators should be able to choose a threshold they wish to moderate to. If I see a comment at one I think should be 3, I would like to moderate it Insightful to 3. If I moderate it and it's still at 1, it goes to 2. If I moderate it and it's at 2, it goes to 3. If I moderate it and it's at 5, then I don't waste my moderation point. Someone linked a comment last week that was moderated up 14 times (+14, Insightful) because of the Birthday Problem you just mentioned. This doesn't change moderation to be like K5, it just makes Slash moderation un-broken and limits the number of accidental +5's that spout garbage.
If you try to prop up a straw man about not having time to add little features, I would point out that if you have an acknowledged problem (you just acknowledged it) in the basics of Slashcode, and you're spending all your dev resources on new features [slashdot.org], then that argument is bogus.
fucking bastards... (Score:2)
Information wants to be free my hairy white ass.
We should all submit this (Score:2)
I submitted this as a YRO, waiting for rejection now.
We all should submit this story to slashdot...
Re:We should all submit this (Score:2)
Yep, rejected.
Come on fans, post along with me!
Re:We should all submit this (Score:3, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=display&id=28
Make sure to add a little comment indicating the topic of this discussion. That ought to attract a little attention.
Make the problem known!!! (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=display&id=28
Perhaps if enough people find out about this bullshit, some change will come about...
big hairy deal (Score:2)
It would be truly amazing if a moderation system existed that got rid of trolls and flamebaits quickly... but as it is, there's some turds who like noise over signal, and as long as that keeps up I'm fine with /. authors moderating, bitchslapping, whatever.
Don't like it? Ask yourself why.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:2)
1. Because authors tend to "push their own agendas" with moderation, in severe contradiction to one the core principals behind distributed moderation (see the slashdot FAQ for CmdrTaco's explanation of why EVERYONE gets to moderate).
2. Because Slashdot tries to pass itself off as a COMPLETELY FREE AND OPEN FORUM, when in actuality, it is quite restrictive and subject to censorship by those who maintain it.
3. Because "anonymous coward" is supposed to mean "anonymous coward" - not "anonymous to everyone except for the guys who want to bitchslap dissident voices." If editors can view the IP's of posters, then the entire purpose of the AC system is defeated, and should thus be removed.
None of the things that you mentioned (editor moderation, bitchslapping, IP availability) are inherently WRONG or inexcusable - however, the fact remains that Slashdot refuses to provide readers and posters with appropriate caveats. If slashdot wants to keep these practices up, then they need to inform their audience that they will do so. However, it is unlikely that they will tell anyone, as it could lead to a large-scale withdrawal of a great deal of its readership (a.k.a. "money in OSDN's bank account"). I think you see where I'm going with this.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:2, Interesting)
1) bitchslap. Rob's name for a perl script to take care of flood-bots. He should have named it "anti-flood.pl" instead. Rob is the only one who has ever had access to use it; I don't think it's been used many times on the site at all; I'm almost certain it hasn't been used in many months. The dreaded formkeys now prevent flooding from scripts proactively instead of the previous reactive system, so it's doubtful it will ever be needed again.
2) IP availability. According to Slashdot, your IPID is "8e451..." Mr. Ska's IPID is "b18e8..." Whoop. Big invasion of privacy there. The IPID system is solely a reaction to people abusing anonymity to post hundreds of crap comments. Now people who do that get automatically IP-banned for 72 hours. I'm all for it.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:1)
Can you expand on that? If I wanted to make an anonymous comment, on an article that I already posted on as "FortKnox", will they both be the same 'IPID'?
Point being, number or crypted number, it doesn't matter, cause our "so called" anonymity is nothing for people that have posted with logged in account.
Please, also note, my non-agressive demeanor, and non-insultive attitude. I'd appreciate it if you'd show the same to the others posting in this journal entry.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:1)
I *think* the IPID records are supposed to be kept for a rolling two-week period, but I'm not certain that that's the actual policy, so don't quote me on that.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:4, Interesting)
We think the ability to post anonymously is important. Sometimes people have important information they want to post, but are afraid to do it if they can be linked to it...
That's it. That is the ONLY mention of anonymous posting that is included in the FAQ, and it leads me to believe that my anonymous posts are just that - anonymous. But they're not. The last sentence even goes so far as to indicate that anonymous posters CANNOT BE LINKED TO THEIR COMMENTS, when in fact, they can.
While this might not seem like an issue, it is. As long as editors have the ability to moderate poster comments, they have the ability to discriminate against certain users, based on that user's IP address. That's where the entire problem lies. If editors can moderate, they have two VERY unfair advantages - infinite points, and the ability to truly push their own agenda on any topic they choose. If either one of these two abilities were removed (and the other made blatantly obvious to readers), there wouldn't be a problem. If posters were TRULY anonymous, then editors wouldn't be able to single them out even when they post anonymously. Conversely, if editors were subject to the same rules of moderation that regular users were, then even the ability to sort by IP address wouldn't help them, as they would no longer be able to mod a single user into oblivion.
I don't see why this is such a big problem for you to understand, michael. You seem like a fairly reasonable person (when you take away your very un-journalistic biases), but you have yet to acknowledge the fact that some people might have a problem with this system. Tell me, how do you rationalize the fact that these unadvertised "features" give editors a very unfair advantage over dissenting readers? Why can't the "features" be advertised? Why does the AC system even exist, if AC's aren't really anonymous?
Re:big hairy deal (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like it you can build your own site. You can even use the code we provide, for free. What a deal!
Agendas? We have the *ultimate* agenda tool, the ability to decide what stories get run! Nothing else compares. If you think our story-selection sucks, my advice is don't read them.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:2, Insightful)
No one cares about story selection. Let me spell it out for you: we don't trust you. We want to know when you're moderating posts, when you're banning users. You have detailed systems to accomplish this [slashdot.org] and everyone knows it.
If you don't want people to know when you're posing as a User and moderating posts, that's fine. But if you don't tell people about it in your FAQ, that makes you just as hypocritical as every corporation you post an article to bash. You're forgetting your audience. We're nerds, computer geeks, programmers, hackers, freedom fighters. We have a finely tuned bullshit meter. And you people are setting it off.
Correct your FAQ to tell people that you're logging IP's and moderating posts. Or don't. But if you choose not to tell people what you're up to at the very least, don't whine about the consequences of being caught. You run a website that lives to "out" people, hell anytime Microsoft makes a wording mistake you are on them like hounds. That's your userbase. If you want to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.
Read the link in my signature. We're just asking for a message when an editor moderates us so we know when we're in danger of being blacklisted. And you know what I mean by blacklisted, the $rtbl flag, a secret user database flag to mark "the bad people". We read the Slashcode. We're not stupid. We won't be silenced. And the more you talk down to us, the angrier we'll get.
You should know what happens when people act condescending [microsoft.com].
Re:big hairy deal (Score:1)
It was used on me, and I have never in my life used a script to access Slashdot.
I was also IP-banned.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:2)
Re:big hairy deal (Score:2)
I'd say one of the central questions here is: are the IPIDs attached with the message? I'm not so interested in whether a Slashdot editor discriminates some individual, but what if, say, the FBI/NSA/other-three-letter-department comes knocking at your door? They can get any information that you store about the comments. If the IPIDs are attached to the messages, then when posting anonymously you always risk the chance that your IP _can_ be traced from that comment. (The MD5 hash doesn't help in this case, since you just have to try 2^32 combinations - shouldn't be a major problem for a fast machine.)
The flood-banning could be implemented just by keeping a log of IPs or IPIDs, and how many messages have been posted recently, but without attaching them to the messages in question.
Are the IPIDs attached to the posted messages? That's the point I'm worried about.
To answer your final question: (Score:2)
In the field displaying the post's vital information (posted by, subject, etc.), the ipid and Subnet are also displayed. Clicking the displayed info lists all posts made from the ipid or Subnet. Anyone with editor status may view the ipid and Subnet hashes.
The info is discarded in approximately two weeks.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:1)
Teehee.
Re:big hairy deal (Score:1)
How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:2)
Remember the lawsuit they got alleging that
I've got no problem with dropped submissions. But bitchslapping, tracking IP's, etc... Sounds like in the effort to make it easier to appeal to advertisers,
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:2)
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:1)
I think the problem here - our failure to communicate - is because you're believing the various conspiracy theories without evidence.
And no, moderation is not comparable to putting someone in prison.
And no, from a legal standpoint, the moderation system does not make Slashdot more or less liable for comments posted. The law on this is now fairly clear - since Slashdot has the power to remove comments from the database, once we receive a complaint about any particular comment we're essentially "on the hook" for its content. If Slashdot receives fewer hassles over comments than other sites (and I think we do) it's because of the potential bad publicity (see what happened when Microsoft tried it), not because the law protects us in any fashion.
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:2)
However, you seem to be avoiding the other concerns that I and the other readers here have expressed - in regards to IP tracking, unlimited editor moderation, and discrimination. Would you care to respond to those allegations?
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:2, Interesting)
I admin Slash 2.2 myself. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you cannot metamod, your account probably has been flagged in $rtbl, the Real Time Black List. Flagging the account also makes the account ineligible for moderation, AFAIK. It can be flagged by account, ipid or even subnet. If ipid or subnet is used, any account using said ipid or subnet will be affected by the action. Comments can be sorted by these id's, and the resulting comment list looks like if you were just browsing a user's comments list from clicking a link in a discussion. You also might be on the Top Abusers list, but I'm not too sure. I have yet to use said feature myself.
This account, despite high karma and existing for over 6 months now, never has moderated either. Also, this account has lost metamod capabilities some time ago. I'm pretty certain that my ipid has been $rtbl'ed, put on the Top Abusers list or both.
You gotta admit, it does take care of the multiple account issue, listing by ipid/subnet pretty much merges your accounts together.
Re:I admin Slash 2.2 myself. (Score:1)
Re:I admin Slash 2.2 myself. (Score:1)
Re:I admin Slash 2.2 myself. (Score:2)
oh well its just the
Jeremy
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think most people understand moderation very well. I see there's a reply that is correct about changes in Slash 2.2 that let the site maintainer turn off moderation, comment posting and story submission for particular users. CmdrTaco is the sole administrator of that on Slashdot.
So if you never get moderation points on Slashdot, there are two possible reasons. You might not qualify normally - moderator points are assigned to people who aren't within the newest accounts created, read the site often but not too often, and so forth, several different criteria. Or you might have been flagged. Doing things like moderating up goatse.cx links is a good way to get flagged as a bad moderator if CmdrTaco notices.
Is that "political"? Yeah, I suppose. But the politics being promoted is "trying to run a good discussion site", same as the motivation for everything else.
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:1)
Humm. Well, la la laaaa.... (Score:1)
Lovely.
However, like turbine, I do make very valid points but lack the coherency at times trying to make that point clear. C'est la vie.
When most people talk about "Crack Smoking Moderators", I think what they are really trying to say is; 2/3's of the moderators really do make an effort to do a good job, the other 1/3, however, don't seem to have a clue.
Why?
Well, IMO the 1/3 have never read the faq I think.
I've seen well done sarcasm modded as a troll.
For me, I fell for it, but I think of it this way:
if you read something that makes you angry, read it again. If you get angrier, that's flamebait. If you think it is dumb, that is a troll. If you laugh, heh funny, informative, insightful or a + score of your choosing.
Now I've gotten mod points, what? a grand total of 3 times...read the faq the first two time, beacuse: I did NOT want to fall into a CSM.
I don't recall modding anyone down, either, because the trolls had been taken care of.
Now, IIRC, does it or does it not say "don't mod people down because you disagree with them?".
That is exactly what I saw going on. Modding down (censorship, if you will) not because of what I said, but "who" I was.
I'll admit, it was the same "pissed offedness" that lead to things such as the the Boston Tea party, and the various wars.
I've said it before (as have others): Moderators are the "other white meat" aka Anon. Cowards.
Or, in someone's better words: Moderators should not be both *anonymous* and *unaccoutable*.
Does metamoderation do any good? Hell if I know, for I gave up metamoderating for a while.
Now I just look for modding down of comments and apply the rules I've mentioned above. Blatant troll/flamebait is modded as fair, otherwise I mark it unfair.
Hence my benefit of the doubt philosophy, Mike.
The point of all this?
Simple: The
We get angry when it does not work or is applied unjustly.
We, as techs, like to fix problems. It is our nature. I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could think of something, but, alas, I'm too tired, too buzzed, and too relaxed at the moment to give a shit and think about this particular thread anymore.
Cheers, my friends.
Moose.
PS. Could we add a "reply karma" category? 75 replies so far..heh, and I did not say "First post either".
Anywho...
.
Re:Humm. Well, la la laaaa.... (Score:2)
I go through the meta-mods fairly quickly, looking for things that have been down-mod'd, and if it's Redundant or Over-rated, I check the context of the post (but not the author), and it usually gets mod'd back up.
Redundant is actually the one I'm hardest on...
"more evil" (Score:2)
I wouldn't get into a legal battle LRONs minions over some stupid AC comment.
Microsoft isn't going to make your life into a living hell or anything...
Re:"more evil" (Score:1)
Dude (Score:2)
Re:Dude (Score:1)
Re:"more evil" (Score:2)
You've obviously never used Windows.
Thats not true (Score:2)
Re:How does this affect M$ lawsuit? (Score:2)
Really? How does that interact with the Court ruling that message board posts are opinions, not facts? [slashdot.org]
Talk to the trolls (Score:2)
Heh, never ceases to amaze me.. (Score:2)
You see this is the exact kind of hypocritical behaviour that this discussion is targeting.
And whilst I'm at it: Does metamoderation actually *DO* anything? Seriously, Mike, does it?
Consider that if a post is marked as a troll, and it is not a troll, does the moderation get *undone*? Or is the moderator just marked for a period of time?
If you see my point of view, you have to admit that if a moderator is doing a bad job, his/her moderations *should* be undone if at all possible.
Because the point we are making is: No good deed goes unpunished and the opposite is also true.
On the whole, Slashdot is doing an excellent job.
But, that good job is being undermined by (and this is my opinion, mind you) by a certain few.
{I'd also be willing to bet that Galvatron recently got mod points on that day. If it were possible...hey, a new slashcode idea...I'd bet, oh, say 10 karma points---what else are they good for? Nothing, really--- that it was him. J'accuse! If I am right I get 10 of his, If I am wrong, he/she gets 10 of mine}
:)
Gotta love the new math, tho, at the kap, got a +4 from a comment...but one -1 and now at 49.
Heh, 50+4-1=49? cute.
Oh, well, ever since hitting the cap on the other account, I stopped taking moderation seriously (and metamoding for that matter)... I just post here to realax.
hasta.
Moose
.