Suggestion: Implement Peer Moderation on SDF


solarz

Brigadier
I think it's no secret that the mods on here have been overwhelmed for quite a while now. With expanding membership and not enough mods to go around, the content of the threads inevitably suffers.

This is why I propose a peer moderation system, like the one already used in many other social media sites. Members can upvote or downvote posts, and posts with a high downvote to upvote ratio will be automatically collapsed. To prevent abuse, new members would not be allowed to vote until they have accumulated a certain number of upvotes from their own content.

Please note that this system is meant to complement the current moderation staff, not to replace them.

Another proposal is to allow thread creators to lock their threads. This will give more agency to the individual members here so that everyone can take more responsibility for the quality of the content here on SDF.
 

SteelBird

Major
Good suggestion; however, there's one thing you need to consider -- the software. Does the software support such function? If I'm not mistaken, the software of this forum is purchased, not developed by owner (WebMaster). I'm not sure if WebMaster has access to its source code and can modify/add function to it or not. Further, if the software is not designed for, but you wanna add such function to it, you not only need to modify the software but also need to modify the database behind it to store the votes. In short, lot of things to do and might not worth it.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
I think it's no secret that the mods on here have been overwhelmed for quite a while now. With expanding membership and not enough mods to go around, the content of the threads inevitably suffers.

This is why I propose a peer moderation system, like the one already used in many other social media sites. Members can upvote or downvote posts, and posts with a high downvote to upvote ratio will be automatically collapsed. To prevent abuse, new members would not be allowed to vote until they have accumulated a certain number of upvotes from their own content.

Please note that this system is meant to complement the current moderation staff, not to replace them.

Another proposal is to allow thread creators to lock their threads. This will give more agency to the individual members here so that everyone can take more responsibility for the quality of the content here on SDF.
Another thing to consider is tidal wave/adiru/etc will create 100 accounts to upvote his own content.
 

Aniah

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another thing to consider is tidal wave/adiru/etc will create 100 accounts to upvote his own content.
I know we ban people with the same IP but do we have an automatic system that does this? Also is the system ban possible? The same man keeps coming back and stirring trouble on every thread.
 

WebMaster

The Troll Hunter
Staff member
Administrator
It is a good suggestion. I will check if something like this requires an addon or modification to implement.

There are few things to consider though, like:
  1. Who upvotes? I imagine only senior members or those with 1000++ posts would have to vote on this to prevent new users from rigging content votes.
  2. what happens to upvoted or downvoted content?
  3. what happens to users with downvoted content or too much of it?

We are already using something similar where user can be banned from a thread rather than whole forum.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think senior members with 1000+ posts would be a useful starting limit to trial if we decide to implement such a feature.

Content that automatically reaches a certain net positive or net negative can be automatically "hidden" from the thread and requires deliberate steps from a user if they want to see it. E.g. a thin strip that says "this post has been downvoted by the community due to perceptions of poor quality/non-constructive, click here to verify you would like to see it".
For posts that reach a certain net negative, they may be no longer able to be replied and flags to moderators to consider for deletion.

In terms of users with too much downvoted content, perhaps at a certain limit -- e.g.: either by the number of posts of net downvotes and/or the sheer number of net downvotes accumulated from many posts -- they can automatically be flagged to moderators for consideration of warnings and/or banning for being non-constructive/poor quality.



Of course the problem with this process is that having some level of debate is useful and we don't want people to downvote people for the sake of it simply out of disagreement in a debate.
Also, implementing such a feature may be complex.
 

solarz

Brigadier
It is a good suggestion. I will check if something like this requires an addon or modification to implement.

There are few things to consider though, like:
  1. Who upvotes? I imagine only senior members or those with 1000++ posts would have to vote on this to prevent new users from rigging content votes.
  2. what happens to upvoted or downvoted content?
  3. what happens to users with downvoted content or too much of it?

We are already using something similar where user can be banned from a thread rather than whole forum.


I think senior members with 1000+ posts would be a useful starting limit to trial if we decide to implement such a feature.

Content that automatically reaches a certain net positive or net negative can be automatically "hidden" from the thread and requires deliberate steps from a user if they want to see it. E.g. a thin strip that says "this post has been downvoted by the community due to perceptions of poor quality/non-constructive, click here to verify you would like to see it".
For posts that reach a certain net negative, they may be no longer able to be replied and flags to moderators to consider for deletion.

In terms of users with too much downvoted content, perhaps at a certain limit -- e.g.: either by the number of posts of net downvotes and/or the sheer number of net downvotes accumulated from many posts -- they can automatically be flagged to moderators for consideration of warnings and/or banning for being non-constructive/poor quality.



Of course the problem with this process is that having some level of debate is useful and we don't want people to downvote people for the sake of it simply out of disagreement in a debate.
Also, implementing such a feature may be complex.

I think the best solution is to keep things simple.

1. Who can vote? Ideally, it would be members who have accumulated a certain number of upvotes from their posts. This would prevent people from creating multiple accounts to abuse the system. If this is not possible, then simply going by post count would still go a long way toward preventing abuse. 1000 posts is probably too much and would discourage new members from participating. 100 posts might be a more reasonable threshold.

2. What happens to upvoted or downvoted content? Nothing happens to upvoted content. Posts that accumulate too many downvotes, either by ratio or by total number, gets collapsed by default and readers will need to click on an expand button to open it. This way, the post is still there, but only those users who choose to expand it can read it.

3. What happens to users who accumulate too many downvotes? Nothing happens to them. The idea here is that this system will assist the moderators by allowing the members to conduct their own policing of questionable content, thus freeing up the mods to take action on posts that clearly violate the forum rules, instead of having to play the role of adjudicators. Post that may or may not be designed to provoke other members can be downvoted and collapsed by the members themselves instead of bringing the moderator into the argument, who clearly have no interest in reading the back-and-forth. If a member acts in clear violation of the rules, such as posting under multiple accounts, posting X-Rated content, harassing or threatening other members through public or private messages, etc., then the moderators can step in and take action.
 

Mt1701d

Junior Member
Registered Member
1. Who can vote? Ideally, it would be members who have accumulated a certain number of upvotes from their posts. This would prevent people from creating multiple accounts to abuse the system. If this is not possible, then simply going by post count would still go a long way toward preventing abuse. 1000 posts is probably too much and would discourage new members from participating. 100 posts might be a more reasonable threshold.
I understand the idea is to have more or encourage participation of new members but just one note on basing on pure number of posts, because that is prone to abuse as well, as in someone doing one line reply/response can easily accumulate to the threshold number of post.

Thus may be a further more manual selection process on top, by senior members to begin with and then transition into the total selected pool to manage this, would be advisable with the number of post/engagement acting as a threshold to enter this selection process maybe.
 

Top