I've got an idea for a forum that would be moderated by its community, here's how it goes.
Person A made a post that Person B doesn't like/find offending/thinks it breaks the rules.
Person B can then "report" Person A by clicking a button next to his post and stating a reason, let's say "Rasism".
Person A's post then is sent to a special section of the forum for review.
In that section any user with, lets say, more than 500 posts for example, will be able to vote if he thinks that post is, in this case, rasist, and propose an appropriate punishment.
After 24 hours that the post will be on review, if a certain percent of all users (50 or 75 for example) that reviewed it thought that Person As post deserved to be banned, Person A will be banned.
The duration of the ban will be determined by the proposed punishment.
If 12 users propose 24 hour ban, 6 users propose 3 day ban and one user proposes one week ban then Person A will be banned for 24 hours.
What do you think about this idea?
ban
[editline]18th December 2011[/editline]
-- Everyone would report everything for any reason.
Are you trying to get the current moderators to lose their current jobs, and replace them with the community's decisions?
SOCIALIST
YOU ARE THE 99%
GET OUT YOUR KIND ISN'T WELCOME HERE
[QUOTE=areolop;33787780]-- Everyone would report everything for any reason.[/QUOTE]
Retarded ban propositions wouldn't get accepted, since most users wouldn't find them ban worthy.
If a user will spam ban propositions then it would surely annoy other users and they would decide to ban him in turn.
[editline]19th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=RoflKawpter;33787798]Are you trying to get the current moderators to lose their current jobs, and replace them with the community's decisions?[/QUOTE]
I am not suggesting to implement this on Facepunch but rather asking if this idea is feasible on forums in general.
Banning glaber at the speed of light
Some people wouldn't take it seriously; either banning everyone, or letting everyone off.
[QUOTE=zedpenguin;33788164]Some people wouldn't take it seriously; either banning everyone, or letting everyone off.[/QUOTE]
The thing it that it needs the majority to ban or not to ban a person. If a majority decides that banning someone for nothing is good then be so, if a majority decides that someone doesn't deserve to be banned even if they made a huge shitpost then so be it.
or we could have moderators
So no moderators at all? What happens when you get lots of people spamming the forums or tons of spambots and you have to sit there and wait for the entire community to review each case before something can be done?
Maybe this'd work for a small forum, but not a big forum. Sometimes shit needs to get done fast.
[QUOTE=meppers;33788234]or we could have moderators[/QUOTE]
The core idea behind this system is to remove the subjectivity factor that comes with having moderators.
It's up to one person to ban someone and that can get messy, we've all heard "He banned me just because he didn't like me." and sometimes it's true.
I feel that my system allow community to dictate it's rules. If majority of the community thinks that saying "lol uamd?" is ban worthy then so be it.
The community dictates the forum rules, not the other way around.
Process is too slow, can be abused.
A mix of both moderators and users would be good.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;33788277]
It's up to one person to ban someone and that can get messy, we've all heard "He banned me just because he didn't like me." and sometimes it's true.[/QUOTE]
Or you can just take care in picking good moderators and making sure they're actually enforcing rules so you won't have an issue to begin with.
A forum without mods? I would assume it'd look something like this:
[img]http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/a-train-wrecks-accidents-24.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=postal;33788247]So no moderators at all? What happens when you get lots of people spamming the forums or tons of spambots and you have to sit there and wait for the entire community to review each case before something can be done?[/QUOTE]
That thought has crossed my mind. No moderators at all would probably be a bad idea but many issues can be solved without moderators.
Mass spam could easily be restricted by allowing users to only send a limited amount of posts for review per day.
Let's say that for every 500 posts on the forum you can send one post for a review per day.
I figure that you still need moderators to make sure the forum is kept around general guidelines (no CP for example).
thats a shitty idea
actually its a good idea because thats what currently happens
except instead of regular users viewing the reported post section, only mods can see it, and instead of voting for punishment, the mods punish them how they like
i think the current system is good
[QUOTE=postal;33788304]Or you can just take care in picking good moderators and making sure they're actually enforcing rules so you won't have an issue to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I'm almost 100% sure that every moderator have banned someone just because they didn't like that person, at least once.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;33788359]I'm almost 100% sure that every moderator have banned someone just because they didn't like that person, at least once.[/QUOTE]
If you personal ban, you get called out on the mod forum. You can't get away with it.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;33788359]I'm almost 100% sure that every moderator have banned someone just because they didn't like that person, at least once.[/QUOTE]
Uh no I've never banned people only because I didn't like them. So long as they've banned someone for breaking a rule who cares what their opinion of them is?
I don't know, ages ago these forums were pretty strict with moderation. Over the last two years things have gotten more relaxed. There are still some things I can't really see why you'd ban for, like predicting moderation, etc. But things like meme replies are indeed annoying.
We already have some community moderation:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1ntTK.png[/IMG]
The mods aren't seemingly as ban-happy as they used to be so I think if it works, don't change it.
Looks like we need something better to sort out bots from humans though.
If you want to help with moderating, report people. It does help, they tend to check the reports they get.
[QUOTE=postal;33788416]Uh no I've never banned people only because I didn't like them. So long as they've banned someone for breaking a rule who cares what their opinion of them is?[/QUOTE]
Postal is right, he's just a douchefuck on half life mods instead.
laissez-faire moderating, lmao
There's not really a problem with our current moderation system now, we have plenty of moderators that do a good job of keeping the place in order. Even if it was bad, your proposed idea isn't a very good solution.
I think this is a bad idea
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/guyk.png/][IMG]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5629/guyk.png[/IMG][/URL]
Actually, something like Slashdot's system might work well here (I'm going off memory, might get some of their specifics wrong, but the general idea is as follows):
Every post has a score, from -2 to 5. Anonymous posts start at 0, registered-member posts start at 1.
Random people are given moderator points. They can use these either to raise the score of a post, or lower it. If they don't use them after a few days, they get taken away (encouraging them to actually use them).
Readers get to set their browsing level, to pick what score a post needs to be visible. I, for instance, have it show posts rated 4 and 5 in full, and abbreviate posts rated 1-3 (meaning any posts rated 0 or below are invisible to me). Some masochists set it so show all posts in full.
You can also set a point modifier, so posts from people you've marked as friends get a bonus, or so people you've marked as foes get lowered. This only affects your view, it doesn't change other people's views.
People who have consistently gotten high ratings get a "karma bonus" as well, which raises their default score to 2. I think people can also get negative karma - so if they continually have bad posts, they get lower default scores.
Overall, it works well. Spam and flamebait get marked down extremely quickly - the only time I see it is when I've been given mod points and am browsing with all comments showing.
The main problems are groupthink-related. People of a certain opinion are likely to up-rate posts that agree with them. This means that newcomers who have a differing opinion may see a large number of disagreeing posts, and decide that this isn't the best place for them. So, in Slashdot's case, almost everyone is strongly anti-Microsoft, anti-Apple, has strong negative feelings on copyright law, and tends to be slightly socialist in politics. The particulars don't matter - if another site used it, you might get hordes of Twilight fans and furries. Basically, whatever the starting opinions are tend to get exaggerated over time.
I'm also not sure how well such a thing would work in a more discussion-oriented place like this. Slashdot is primarily a news site, and discussions are mainly on current news. So this system would work well in Sensationalist Headlines or In The News. I'm not sure how well it would stand up in Model Releases or Fast Threads or Photoshop Contests, though.
Still, it's an interesting system, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to adapt it to our particular circumstances.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;33788277]The core idea behind this system is to remove the subjectivity factor that comes with having moderators.
It's up to one person to ban someone and that can get messy, we've all heard "He banned me just because he didn't like me." and sometimes it's true.
[/QUOTE]
Then we tell them to quit bitching
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;33788935]Wouldn't work at all. It'd lead to morons tossing everyone out just for giggles. Sure, if you want to have a bunch of 14 year olds control whom gets banned or not, that's okay, but it wouldn't work.[/QUOTE]
If the said community consist only of 14 y/o then yes.
[editline]19th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;33788865]Actually, something like Slashdot's system might work well here (I'm going off memory, might get some of their specifics wrong, but the general idea is as follows):
Overall, it works well. Spam and flamebait get marked down extremely quickly - the only time I see it is when I've been given mod points and am browsing with all comments showing.
The main problems are groupthink-related. People of a certain opinion are likely to up-rate posts that agree with them. This means that newcomers who have a differing opinion may see a large number of disagreeing posts, and decide that this isn't the best place for them. So, in Slashdot's case, almost everyone is strongly anti-Microsoft, anti-Apple, has strong negative feelings on copyright law, and tends to be slightly socialist in politics. The particulars don't matter - if another site used it, you might get hordes of Twilight fans and furries. Basically, whatever the starting opinions are tend to get exaggerated over time.
Still, it's an interesting system, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to adapt it to our particular circumstances.[/QUOTE]
That's the system with the same core idea as mine. Allow the community to dedicate the rules.
To allow the community to create itself and reinforce it's own ideals.
As you said, it will lead to a certain opinions prevailing across the whole board (like anti-apple or anti-microsoft for example) but that's not a bad thing. That's what creates a community.
So basically Stack Exchange?
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;33787916]Banning glaber at the speed of light[/QUOTE]
But he keeps us entertained.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
