Journal: Moderation.

I just want to know. Why is it that some people see moderation as a personal thing? I see lots of notes like "Karma at 50, no moderation required." Things like that. And I ignore them completely. If the comment is worth reading and should be over my +3 comment level, I put it there.

Then there are the people who self-consciously make a comment and then include some jibe about how their words are sure to be moderated all to hell. Unfortunately, the only time I see comments like that is when I don't have moderation points with which to mod down those that don't actually make a point. Funny thing is, you'd think I would see more of those at the -1 level I browse when moderating. Why do people mod those up? Is the average Slashdotter that gullible? Simple reverse psychology does the trick every time, it seems.

Then again, overall, I'm usually pretty satisfied with the state of moderation on Slashdot. It shows me enough interesting stuff that I have no problem getting something out of every story I read. Sometimes a horrendous troll will be modded up; it happens. People want to respond to controversial things. I've noticed that in main-page stories, unless you post within the first hour or so, the chances of your comment being read and reacted to are pretty slim. That's when trolls start trolling for attention. Only one thing bothers me about this - that the average moderator modding up a troll is sitting there going, "Right on, brother! Preach it to me!" while the smart ones are going, "Pssht, another troll. I'll ignore it - negative mods do no one any good." It makes my get-outta-the-gene-pool reflex twitch.

Ahh, boredom. Sweet, sweet boredom.

Added later:

Metamoderation is the saving grace of Slashdot. I see something funny modded as a troll... grah. Twitchtwitch goes the metamoderation finger. Gimme that post! Inept moderators beware! Watch the watchers! Yee haw!

Heeheee. Metamoderation complete. I should do that more often. It's very therapeutic. The fingers stop twitching, the eyes tear up, and I let out this happy little sigh. I'm so glad my office knows to just ignore me.

And on another point of this particular topic: those guys with the sigs are right, yaknow. Negative moderation is pretty much bad. There's the possible benefit of getting rid of the first-posters and the ascii-artists, but editors take care of most of that, from what I've heard. I'm sure some of the other posters here can enlighten me on that. Negative moderation should never, ever be applied for an opinion which opposes the moderator's. I was only recently enlightened on this, myself. In most cases I've found it to be quite true.