Forums → Support Forum → Moderators: balance of power
| 19 | 4247 |
I checked a few of the pages and didn't see any posts about this topic specifically, hence I'm making a new one. This is a topic that would most likely require some kind of direct review by the forum admins.
As of late, I'm sure everybody has noticed an explosion in the spam. For whatever reason this is, I also know that everybody finds this particularly distressing given the malicious nature of some of the spam.
Moderators, when active, do an excellent job of clearing these posts on the site, but I've noticed a great deal of confusion over "why has this person not been banned yet?" When I'm starting to get confronted with bucketloads of spam from the same users despite repeatedly cleaning the posts and seeing mods clearing the posts and warning errant users etc., I know something's gotta give.
This gives me the following suggestions:
1) I don't know exactly what the balance of powers are. What exactly can the moderators do? What kind of protocols are involved in the banning of a troublesome user and what exactly constitutes grounds for banning? Is it fair to ask for some transparency here, please? Hopefully this will make it much clearer to all the users so there won't need to be so many questions (cluttering the profiles of the mods, especially), as well as there being less confusion about how to interpret various rules.
2) If the moderators themselves cannot already perform some kind of suspension or ban, I suggest at least having the power to independently temporarily suspend an account, effective immediately, pending further review. Seeing that the screening process is so careful, I'm quite sure that the risk of a moderator abusing this power is low, all things considered. As far as I can see, certain users have persisted on the site for several days even after insurmountable evidence that they ought to be banned.
3) I count a few moderators in the US, and a couple in Europe. However I don't see any from the Pacific region, which means that there's quite a large time-gap when both sets are inactive, which means that certain activity goes unmonitored, and furthermore means more cleaning up the next day.
Basically I'm suggesting it's time that AG take on more mods, the mods have increased power, and we somehow are able to know more directly what the mods can do.
- 19 Replies
I certainly understand your frustration, Strop, and it is shared by much of the community. While I don't want to be the one to break the "cone of silence" about moderator powers, I will say that it becomes very apparent to all the wrong people exactly where our powers are incredibly limited.
Personally, when I get on to check things I spend so much time deleting spam that I have very little time for anything else. I have had several users complain of our ineffectiveness, but the spam you guys are seeing I would wager is not even half of what you could be seeing. That being said, it is still inexcusable for you guys to have to put up with so much garbage.
I'm hoping this will all come to a head (if it hasn't already) and help push through some new tools for us to keep the site clean. In the meantime, I've got to get back to the ol' spam mines... just swinging' away at the huge lumps.
I agree with the bit about no mods in the pacific region. I had reported someone about making bad posts in the forums which linked to pornography and it took at least 10 hours for it to be removed. There needs to be mods in my timezone, that are awake when I am awake, not when I am asleep.
Moegreche, if there is so much spam, why arn't there more mods to deal with this?
I agree, there should really be some more moderators! at least 2-3 more that are NOT from The States, I can only get contact to a mod at 8 PM, It's a pretty big problem, cause sometimes we need mods to be at the place REALLY fast. Like for example with problems in the chat, sometimes there's just chaos, and there are no mods that can be at the place that fast.
I really like the idea of giving the mods more power too, then they could ban people or something. It takes too long from the people that needs to be banned gets banned! Sometimes they don't get banned too...
Thanks for reading!
Lvdk
Carlie is our Pacific moderator. I'm not sure where dank is. Calm is French, Moe and I do central.
I'm online more frequently as of late to take over for Carlie a bit while she's off studying manatees or whatever, so I'm trying to fill the gap a bit.
I am online pretty much all day so I can handle most issues on the hour while I am at the ArmorO.
I am sure that new mods will be chosen in the future, though I am not sure how far into the future that will be. It is sort of sad that the mods are too busy reinforcing the comment/forum spam to realy go into the chatroom. That just shows how much spam is on this site.
Well it's true that there's a lot of work do be done, NoName, but I've already seen far worse.
However, it's true I would love to find less spam on the game boards, becuase it's the most annoying kind of spam you can find. I think we should sensibilizate the users to what is spam (and thus likely to be deleted) and what isn't spam. Most users don't know that we consider messages such as "good/suck/ok/nice/amazing/i rate it 9/10/..." as spam. Thus this are the messages we find most of the time on the game boards.
As long as a message brings no real feedback/suggestions, it is considered as spam. All the previous messages I quoted wouldn't be spam if you explained why you thought this game is good/bad, etc.
I think an effective way of reducing spam (I've never tested it though) would be to instaure a minimum number of characters for each post (let's say 50 for example): you wouldn't be able to post any message under 50 charactesr long and thus it would encourage you to write useful reviews.
(sorry for deviating from the subject
Yeah I always liked that number word limit idea because it just seems like it'll work perfectly and it would defiantly reduce the spam by a good amount, but then again people can just write the same word over and over 50 times. Even though it still would take longer to do, and people would most likely stop doing because they don't feel like wasting their time.
Well, the original topic of moderator power has already been brought to John's attention, so that's all good. It's fine to talk about chat here...
...the writer of webcomic XKCD suggested a very novel approach, which would be difficult to implement here but would probably get rid of almost all the spam comments!
It's this: Employ a script such that if people write a phrase that is an exact match of a phrase that has been used before, it will mute them for a certain period of time. The more infractions a single user racks up (within a certain timeframe- optional), the longer the mute lasts, and this grows (arithmetically, exponentially, up to you).
Those who don't learn, soon lose the ability to speak! Given that I a) type in proper english b) always articulate my ideas in great detail, I am at very little risk of incurring any penalties...with the exception of the "obligate one-liners" such as "wnt" and "lol, noob". But that's precisely the kind of chat that we're aiming to minimise, right?
I just wish there was an easy way to implement this with commenting on the games, so we didn't have so many "too easy" "bad" "THIS SUX U ***" reviews.
The original expression of the problem and proposed solutions are archived here
@ Strop
I would not necessarily agree with this suggestion, Strop. First of all, would you be able to code it specifically to trigger if you *only* said 'bad', and not the word 'bad' within the sentence? Also, would this transcend to people's message boards as well? Although I would consider myself fairly well spoken (typen? ^.^) I occasionally use the silly little online words in jest, and would not want to have to change my ways because of this. If we could implement it without any ill effects towards our loyal, more mature members, I do like the idea.
@ Calm
I like this idea, and had thought of it on occasion (I think I saw it floating around somewhere. Of course, we would get more lengthy spam as well, but if you're busy typing a random string of 50 letters, that is more time you are not spending elsewhere. Also, lengthy spam is easy to see. I think the only real problem this would trigger is that spammers, in lieu of typing an original spam, would either copy someone else's post and paste it, or make their own generic post and apply it to every game. Either that, or I'm giving them ideas now ^.^
Yes, DM, you're right. I'm not sold on the idea I suggested because I would really hate to part with my "oh you" and "lol @ voidy" ways (because I'm going to be saying that a lot...these are idiosyncratic behaviors).
The issue is that such idiosyncratic behaviors are difficult to separate objectively from that which we subjectively label spam. Given that this isn't supposed to be one of those experimental/intellectual sites whose premise is based on this tool, said tool would have to undergo extensive modification to reach any kind of happy compromise.
Which leads me to another suggestion...limitations on posting. Right now, the forums etc. have a 30 second limit between posts. Is this sufficient? And should some kind of "ost limitation" be placed on the chat, such that when you log into a room, you're given a number of chats which increases regularly...hm, problem there are those who would then log out the log back in, unless this limit applies across all rooms.
Either way, don't worry about giving others ideas...any system is exploitable, and will be exploited one way or another.
...I just had an idea. Since we're not here to eliminate all unoriginal discussion, we could implement a strategy that limits unoriginal posting.
Instead of an exponential increase in muted time upon posting a certain vocabulary of words like "lol" etc, the script could mute for only a short period of time (10 seconds), the penalty increasing by +1 seconds for every repeat offense, and -1 for every minute spent in a chat room. Values like that would strongly discourage the most chronic of offenders, but the occasional lapse in our talking shouldn't be that much of a sacrifice for the more articulate of posters.
I think that upping the time limit may be a good idea, though there are times that I am on a replying rampage (that sounds a lot more violent than it is) and I am often forced to copy/paste my reply again after I refresh the page. Since it usually takes me at least that 30 seconds to type my response, it is not usually a problem, but if we upped it, it might add unnecessary annoyances to those of us who just happen to type quickly ^.^ Then again, I would be alright with waiting a few seconds it it cut down on the stupidity elsewhere.
I don't know that I necessarily understand your formula here. Why would the time be taken down for someone being in the chat room? That seems to try to push all the spammers into the chat room, which are already filled with...interesting characters ^.^ I think that if we used some sort of this idea, but AG-ized it, it could be useful.
You must be logged in to post a reply!