Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashback

Journal sllort's Journal: An Open Letter to the Editors 18

Journal by sllort

This letter was emailed to CmdrTaco on 04/02/2002. I will update my journal immediately if I receive a response. In the absence of that update, you can assume the response to be: "No Comment".

Updated for accuracy, 04/04/2002

      Why do you refuse to document your user Blacklist?

First: Thank-you, Rob, for updating the FAQ to reflect the fact that Editors do 10% of Moderating Slashdot. Thank you for addressing the Anti-Troll filters that impose semi-permanent bans on users.

Second: Since you have been so forthcoming in the FAQ about the previous two topics, why don't you change the FAQ to include the Big Question that came out of the original Meta discussion: Can some Moderation activity can get you banned from the Moderation and MetaModeration systems? Considering that the purpose of M2 is to evaluate the fairness of M1, and that some people are permanently banned from this process, shouldn't you at least disclose this when citing M2 as proof of fairness? And furthermore, don't you think you should be open with your users about the fact that their actions can get them banned from the system?

Your Moderation Guidelines contain the following:

Why can't I suddenly moderate any more?
If you unfairly moderate a comment, you might have your access revoked, although this is almost never the reason people lose access.

Considering you banned upwards of five hundred people for moderating a single post, I personally believe that quote should be reviewed for accuracy. What does "unfair" mean? Who determines it? How can you find out that your access has been revoked? Are there any guidelines that determine what "unfair" means or how to avoid being "unfair"? What does "almost never" mean (aren't close to 18% of Moderators banned?). In any case, nowhere is there a mention of the fact that hundreds of users are banned, nor of the fact that they are banned from M1 and M2. This hand-picking of the M2 pool affects all claims as to the ability of M2 to judge "Fairness" and it is completely undocumented. What is written about M2 selection is misleading and untrue.

I don't think many people have a problem with you hand selecting Moderators and Meta-Moderators. However, I think a great number of people have a problem with you doing it in secret, and especially with leaving misleading documentation in place of the truth:

"
It's probably the most difficult part of the process: who is allowed to moderate. On one hand, many people say "Everyone," but I've chosen to avoid that path because the potential for abuse is so great. Instead, I've set up a few simple rules for determining who is eligible to moderate.

  - Logged In User
  - Regular Slashdot Readers
  - Long Time Readers
  - Willing to Serve
  - Positive Contributors (+karma)
"

You fail to mention the fifth case that affects eligibility:

Non-blacklisted users

I'm not saying that you don't have a right to have a secret policy that is misleadingly documented. IYSYCDWYW (It's Your Site, You Can Do What You Want). But you hold other people (Microsoft, Oracle, Disney) to such a high bar that when you fail to make that bar yourself, it hurts your credibility. Haven't you gotten enough angry emails from users who have been secretly banned?

In short, my question is this:

Why do you refuse to document your user Blacklist?.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Open Letter to the Editors More

An Open Letter to the Editors

Comments Filter:

  • Hemos (editor) is really just Eric Krout of http://www.monolinux.com.

  • Hi sllort. It's me! Have you missed me?

    Anyway, there used to be a fidoNet network that I used to participate at.. and there were some people there who used to spend most of their time writing about the rules of writing there (and there was a lot to talk about.. like who users will be banned and why, and which areas will be opened and closed).

    It was called Net politics - writing about how other people write, instead of writing yourself.

    I guess you're the equivalent of the net politicians of FidoNet. It's kinda a waste of time, but it's fun to see how people invest time in that.

    Yalla bye.
    • I guess you're the equivalent of the net politicians of FidoNet. It's kinda a waste of time, but it's fun to see how people invest time in that.

      Yes, it is a waste of time. I decided to stop trolling Slashdot, and try to focus on being constructive. So far, I haven't been very successful. But I'm trying, and at least I'm not trolling. Ok, I created Junis Kanuni, but that was one post, and I thought it was reasonably funny.

      But I digress.

      I haven't wasted as much time as the Editors did writing that FAQ. There are rules posted here. The problem is that they're bullshit. In August of 2001, I wrote this document [slashdot.org] which pointed out that there are some huge mistruths in the FAQ. We've come pretty far - the FAQ now admits to Editor Moderation. There's still a problem with the messaging system lying about who Moderated a post, and there's the problem with the secret banlist. I figure in another year, we might eventually reach truth.

      Why does this matter? Doesn't Slashdot have the right to be sneaky? Well... if it weren't for the fact that this web site is a soapbox for Truth in Advertising, yes. "Pro-Microsoft site actually runs BSD". Wooo, you caught them. The problem is, when you spend your day posting stories about minor slip-ups made by other companies, you have earned the right to have people document the lies you tell your users. Slashdot cannot meet the bar it has set for Corporate Honesty. The FAQ says you can MetaModerate if you're in the bottom 90% of users by history; this is a lie. You can MetaModerate if you're old enough and if you haven't been blacklisted. That's a huge difference. Slashdot blacklists users! And lies about it in their FAQ! A lie is a deliberate mistruth, and Taco reviewed the FAQ after the META discussions and deliberately left the mistruths in there.

      I'm holding Slashdot to their own standards. They could silence me in under 60 seconds by correcting the FAQ to tell the truth. I wouldn't have a damned thing to say (except maybe "thank you").

      But as long as they have dirty secrets, as long as they're too ashamed of the truth to tell their users, I have an agenda. And I have truth on my side.
      • I decided to stop trolling Slashdot, and try to focus on being constructive. So far, I haven't been very successful.

        Depends on how you define sucessful. You have some non-trolls on your fans list, so that is a good step. The more respectability you gain the more the /. officals have to listen to you

        If a good part of their readership base respects your view on things. . . . imagin if RMS told people to not to go /., a lot of people WOULD stop visiting /. . Same issue here, the more respect you get, the more power you have.

        Odd how a number of trolls have me on their enemies list though, LOL. I still can't get over that one, heh.

        But hey, you are just the sort of user that /. needs MORE of. Level headed, funny, a good writter, and a person who has experance within the computer community in general that extends back to before 1995 *COUGH* flatrate AOL *COUGH*.
    • Yullah bye is my sign off.

      How dare you steal it ?

      lol haven't seen anyone else use the sign off ever. Obviously you are of arabic decent?
      • Well, it might be worse for you. :) I'm Israeli.

        "Yalla bye" is commonly used here, as well as many other Arabic words (Sababa -great, maafan -sucky, walla [walla.co.il] -really?, etc).

        (The translation is obviously for the other journal watches, in case they wonder..)
    • Not that wasting time is a bad thing. I kind of like it.

      Take now, for instance. I'm posting to comment on a post commenting on a post about the censorship and counter-moderation of moderations of a post about the moderation of posts on Slashdot.

      And having a great time.
      • Yes, but it doesn't seem that you're devoting your soul to it, unlike Sllort.

        (My manifesto continues)

        There are so many people who try to affect the /. editors by posting petitions and declaring blackouts, and in most of the cases, it's for a silly cause. For example:

        Sllort: Change the faq and indicate that people are getting banned from moderation!
        rho: Take back what you said about comments and their meanings, or I make a big blackout [slashdot.org] and you be very sorry!
        Trollaxor: Stop modding me down only because I have the word "troll" in my nick!

        I believe that all those actions are bad, and they do not help slashdot in any way. I don't think that the editors have time to respond to all those people, and even if they treated those people seriously, it only would encourage more people to come with demands.

        And while there are some justified demands (like patching the IE page widening bugs or letting users see ALL their comment history), the demands I mentioned above are silly and concentrating too much about them is a time waste (or maybe an excuse for procrastinating other stuff? :)

        Ja ne!
  • Have CmdrTaco et al. replied?
    I'm quite interested in how they stand to it,
    especially because I mailed them twice and
    got nothing back... (other mails from
    slashdot@slashdot.org I regularily get, so
    e.g. I got news about this journal entry
    and replies to my posts).
  • After being blacklisted for modding up the PoD you suggested that I write to CmdrTaco. I asked why I had been blacklisted, if it was done by hand or automatically, and it there was some way that I can . I used my Yahoo account and he didn't reply. Later I read a in the discussion about subscriptions that he doesn't read mail from Yahoo or Hotmail accounts. Fine. I wrote using my work account. IBM. Thought he would respect that. Still, no response. I was even nice. Several people have told me to be mean. Maybe I should.

    I think that the main reason I am annoyed is that this isn't documented anywhere. If there was a line in the FAQ that said, "We can and will blacklist even our best users for no reason or the most trivial reason. It is our site, screw yourselves." I wouldn't be so upset. But there is no such line in the FAQ. Now that they are taking subscriptions they need to be more professional, less childish.

    • If there's anything that Taco won't respond to, it's angry flames. I sent him this letter from an account he's replied to before, it hit the bit bucket. He doesn't want to talk about it. If he's ignoring you, he's doing it for a reason. My advice is to write a journal documenting your experience, make your letter an Open Letter, and let people know what happened. If Slashdot, as a community, thinks he did the right thing, then there's not much you or I can do. Raise awareness and see what happens; the more voices say the same thing, the higher the likelihood is that people will believe it.

      Maybe the Blackout will change his tune? Personally, I'm not betting on it.
  • I just recently made the experience of being banned from meta-moderating [slashdot.org]. I wonder if the same blacklist serves both purpose, or if these are different activities kept separate. Any comments are welcome !
  • I figured that since you, sllort, know so much about moderation and stuff, would you tell me what happens when I metamod someone? I am instructed to do something, but I have no idea what's the result.

    It reminds me a short story about someone whose task was to press a red button on a computer each time it blinks, so the man happily did it, until he found what what was the result of each press - a confirmation to kill someone.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus

Close