Crying Wolf: A New Wrinkle in Combating Bloc Collapsing

You allowed my article to be deleted yet never had the guts to answer when I asked about it. It broke no Cof H rules, but the anti Islamic crowd didn't like it. They deleted it.

Youre biased?

3. How many does it take to collapse an article? And has NV considered not collapsing an article until staff review. I know this may put an undo burden on NV staff, but it may result in a smoother functioning NV.

Wow, I agree with you for once.

Good questions; I was thinking about these, myself.

Especially with regards to question two - there are some valid reasons for which one might click the "!" button. For instance, recently there were two articles whose headlines I honestly felt violated the letter and spirit of the CoH: so I duly reported them as misconduct/unlawful. If this article had been collapsed, then restored by admin, I don't believe that it would be fair to automatically suspend reporting privileges. There should be an appeal process in which the individual has at least a chance in order to reasonably explain their conduct.

Regarding question three, I am of the opinion that the community article removal function is, unfortunately, susceptible to abuse. I strongly believe that this ability should be strictly restricted to staff alone, even if - as aRTieA points out above - it places a higher load upon your already overloaded plate.

Regarding question three, I am of the opinion that the community article removal function is, unfortunately, susceptible to abuse

Being a victim of it in the past, I agree.

What aRTieA said! Great points- and so what say you, esteemed Tyler?

Grandpa Tang

Ha ha!!!!

Calvin once informed me that there has been some consideration of this (and I love the Grandpa Tang bit; I'm so changing his name in my address book) but the main reason it's not done is that the community is the only scalable solution to the problem.

In other words, if NV comes under attack by spammers (which we pretty much always are) then there is really no way for the admins to keep up. By allowing the community to collapse and only bringing the admins in when there is an appeal, we greatly reduce their workload and make it possible for them to do other things..... like develop the site.

Funny, his pic doesn't look anything like my grandpa...

We need more Hot Moderating Tylers; but the economy sucks, so we won't get them.

katrix if I remember correctly Tyler works for FREE :)

He gets paid if he works it. And he looks quite capable of doing that.

Oops that was sexist ... I should take it back. But my cancel key just broke.

Or, say a person tends to be pretty good at reporting content for valid reasons, but makes a mistake in one instance. Is it worth losing a months worth of help?

This hypothetical case seems rather low probability... This would require enough other people making exactly the same "mistake" so the article would be taken down. If a single individual makes this mistake, the article stays up... no harm, no fowl.

Say I'm banned from reporting because I erroneously reported something that was restored after being taken down. Do I know I'm banned?

I hope not! That would just pour more fuel on the fire... When reporting privileges are removed, then leave the button in place, say nothing, and send that persons reports into the bit bucket...

This would require enough other people making exactly the same "mistake" so the article would be taken down.

That doesn't seem *that* unlikely, to me, really.

When reporting privileges are removed, then leave the button in place, say nothing, and send that persons reports into the bit bucket.

Again, if that's the case, I see very little incentive to report comments at all. If my reports may or may not be effective, why bother?

Yeah, I gotta side with Brian here.

When reporting privileges are removed, then leave the button in place, say nothing

If people don't know they have either made an unintentional mistake in 'reporting', or been caught in a deliberate 'bad act', how are they going to learn to change their behavior? No one learns in a vacumn, people need positive reinforcement as well as correction.

There's also a problem where the reporting options don't line up well with the COH and the UA. For instance, there is the "Inaccurate" option, which I've used from time to time. Is it against the UA to post "inaccurate" content? Not necessarily; it's against the UA to knowingly post false information. Those are two overlapping, but not completely congruent, sets.

it's against the UA to knowingly post false information.

As I read it, that would be covered by 'Misconduct/Unlawful' better than using 'Inaccurate', because the former would be, or imply a deliberate act, where the latter may be in doubt on the intention of the author or seeder.

I wonder if it's possible, or even wise, to rig the value of the different 'reporting' options, to reflect the seriousness of the perceived infraction that's being reported.

Brian,

Again, if that's the case, I see very little incentive to report comments at all. If my reports may or may not be effective, why bother?

People who act in good faith should have no problem. A commendable devils advocate effort, but unlike most of the stuff you say, I don't feel this argument is very credible.

People who act in good faith should have no problem. A commendable devils advocate effort, but unlike most of the stuff you say, I don't feel this argument is very credible.

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I don't doubt that I've reported content that has been, in the past, restored. Now, I think I'm pretty good in most cases, but the reporting options are a bit subjective in a lot of cases.

As I read it, that would be covered by 'Misconduct/Unlawful' better than using 'Inaccurate',

Well, there's the rub, eh? Why do we have an Inaccurate reporting option in the first place? What I'm concerned about is that good faith reporting efforts using some of the more subjective reporting options will result in a lot of good users losing their ability to report content.

Right, for example, I saw (Tyler, I think) say that something wasn't inaccurate because it was labeled opinion.

But, there's a lot of give inside those parameters.

I don't think this idea is a bad one, but I don't know that a single article/seed being restored is a high enough bar to remove someone's reporting ability (even temporarily). A single difference of opinion with Tyler resulting in yanked privileges supposes that there is an objective standard that reasonable people can use when reporting content. But that's not the case. The COH is brief, broad, and loaded with subjectivity. That's fine (I actually prefer it be that way), but we can't pretend the COH is a purely objective standard that everyone is going to interpret one way.

It just seems like there must be a way to algorithmically determine if someone's reporting behavior is egregious that provides a bit of give for the subjectivity built into the reporting system. Maybe if someone has some x number of bad reports in a given time frame (like a week), then that would be okay. It could even be a relatively low threshold; just so long as a single "bad" report isn't controlling the automated behavior.

spiffie-

Why do we have an Inaccurate reporting option in the first place?

Because, we have, and always will have some members who in their zestful pursuit of the 'truth' as they see it, temorarily lose sight of why non-fictional information needs to be as accurate as reasonably possible. They mean no harm, and do not intend to be false, and frequently don't even know that they are being false. All of which are wrongful acts, but on a lower level than someone being deliberately false. Yes, I realize that determining the difference can often be subjective, but that is also why more than one vote is required, and a review by staff is then called.

good faith reporting efforts using some of the more subjective reporting options will result in a lot of good users losing their ability to report content.

We share this concern.

Brian-

that something wasn't inaccurate because it was labeled opinion.

That's really just a weasely way for some people with an agenda, usually a bad one, to fly garbage under the radar of the CoH. I don't know offhand how to put a stop to it, but it shouldn't happen.

Under the just-instituted system, it should be plenty straightforward to check a user's report history and see if their reporting's consistent or not.

But that would still require the user to appeal to you, yes, after a single potentially subjective difference of opinion in their reading of the COH or UA had removed their ability to report anything for a month? The problem is that this:

An opinion piece would have to be just peppered with provable falsehoods for it to stay down/go down for being inaccurate.

Is not obvious or transparent to users (nor is much of the subjectivity in many of the reporting options). I can know an article is peppered with falsehoods, but now it's going to be up to me (or whoever) to prove to you on an appeal what those falsehoods are?

This would be easily addressed by simply not making it a "single strike and you're out" system. A single strike system seems to me much too draconian and counterproductive to what you're trying to do. I have a feeling many otherwise good reporters are going to be affected by this, either directly by losing privileges or indirectly out of uncertainty in reporting things, that your workload will increase rather than decrease.

Out of curiosity, what happens when the automated system strips the privileges of one of the anti-spam brigade members?

Ultimately, and maybe this is the point, I've just decided that I probably simply won't report content much, anymore.

There's the rub. I think the question for Tyler will be whether it's harder to patrol the streets when your dispatcher is giving you a new call every minute or whether it's harder to patrol the streets when no one wants to (or is able to) call 911.

I guess, if it's me, the first time I report something that I *in good faith* believe is a violation of the Code of Honor, and get an automatic response that says:

"Guess what, guy, you were wrong, and now you can't report anything for a month..."

I'd say: "Well, @!$%# that. It's not worth it. I'm done with reporting content."

I would guess that especially for new users, who will in the future turn out to be really good reporters, they may get it wrong early on, and be frustrated early on by a condemnation.

they may get it wrong early on, and be frustrated early on by a condemnation.

Exactly. It would be infinitely more useful from the standpoint of enculturating new users to e-mail them a simple notice the first x (2? 3?) times an article/seed they reported was restored with a simple "insert reason here" explanation about why the article was restored so they can properly adjust their "this needs a report" threshold.

Actually, that doesn't just apply to new users, since it's pretty clear that even longstanding users (myself definitely not excluded) could use more guidance in this area.

It's also worth noting that the boy who cried wolf was taken seriously the first two or three times he was falsely crying wolf. And, eventually, he was right to cry wolf, he had just lost his reporting privileges. For a month, one suspects.

Under the just-instituted system, it should be plenty straightforward to check a user's report history

Funny, but I've been operating under the impression that it was that way all along. I've never reported anything where I wasn't willing to take responsibility for my action, and publicly if necessary.

I agree with Brian and Spiffie's concerns that a month suspension, for what could amount to nothing but a mistake or differance in opinion, seems a bit overly harsh and counterproductive. It won't foster community participation.....nor 'getting smarter'.

Alrighty.

Every time I see the phrase common sense I think of that quote. Einstein had a pretty good sense of humor.

I think there is a Viner with that handle. Sort of makes you think.......

I've spent a ton of time digging through all of them - looking at private groups, going through user histories, going back to community-censored articles/comments and searching for patterns. What I didn't find was pretty heartening: no evidence that bloc reporting is epidemic or even frequent here on Newsvine.

Some viners who have been very recently making public - and apparently wholly unfounded - accusations about this in the strongest possible manner are very conspicuous by their absence.

It doesn't seem to be asking too much for those who made those discredited accusations to apologise to those whom they unfairly and apparently unjustly accused.

There does seem to be a small number of extremely paranoid individuals on NV-- concocting all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories. IMO the main impact they have (other than wasting everyone's time) is to further inflame any given situation.

Any ideas as to what can be done to minimize the disruption these people cause?

Quite right - there have been only a very small number of people who unfortunately thought it was a good idea to pour poison into the wellspring of our community. These people have maligned other viners without any evidence to support their paranoid fantasies, and have created a whole new climate of mistrust and and bitterness that had not existed prior to these wild-eyed accusations.

Any ideas as to what can be done to minimize the disruption these people cause?

I do believe that Calvin Tang has suggested that the community should decide their fate:

I think that the community should have a say in what the punishment is, both for organized bloc reporting and for falsely accusing people of doing this (be it a public apology or something else).

Personally, I think that this incident warrants some serious action on behalf of Newsvine to discourage such malicious disruptors in the future. These disproven accusations were of a very serious nature - not just accusations of gaming the system, but attacks on the reputations of groups of viners - accusations of being propagandists, accusations of seeding hatred, of being bigots. Entire groups of people had their reputations attacked by association - publicly, with no proof of their wrongdoing - vicious assaults which have been conclusively proven to be false by Newsvine. Such behaviour should not be tolerated here at Newsvine: it is a lethal disease to our community - a community which is built upon the very trust and reputation which was so unjustly attacked.

Extraordinary incidents warrant extraordinary responses.

Those responsible for spreading such ill-will in our community should be required to make a public apology. A suspension seems also to be in order - whatever length of time that Newsvine deems adequate should be fine. I very strongly believe that Newsvine should make it very clear that this behaviour will not be tolerated in the future by stipulating that any further such disruption from these individuals would garner a more permanent penalty.

feel free to name names

Sure thing. I thought it was fairly clear from that link that I provided quoting Calvin's reply to Dennis, that I believe it is Dennis who is unfortunately levelling the majority of these unsubstantiated accusations. Of course, it's Mars313 who's making the same accusations with that article, so in my opinion that individual is also amongst those contributing to an increasingly mistrustful atmosphere here at Newsvine.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Dennis' awfully lengthy article (link) that accused groups of viners of consisting of folks that seeded hate and propaganda and which encouraged what seems to be organised action (via e-mail, no less - sound familiar?) against these groups/individuals? If you haven't slogged through it yet, I'm going to apologise in advance for what is probably going to seem far-too nauseatingly familiar to you after that PWFL scandal.

Mars313 who's making the same accusations with that article, so in my opinion that individual is also amongst those contributing to an increasingly mistrustful atmosphere here at Newsvine.

Mars313 was banned along with a bunch of bogus accounts he was using impersonating Bill Scoggins and other issues just last week I believe it was by Tyler. So you won't be seeing him around again.

SR:

Whoa! Where'd you see that?

Tyler posted the whole detective work / explanation on one of A. Mac's seeds. I've been trying to go through my history for the link. I'll post it as soon as I find it.

Unfortunately, tyler's decision on that one was in another meta article written by A. MacArthur. A. MacArthur decided to take it down due to the fact it began as a @!$%#-session about Bill S and he didn't want to leave it up after the Mars episode. But, essentially, Mars313 created some faux-Scoggin accounts after Bill got suspended and used them to troll and harass people, damaging Scoggin's reputation of course. Fortunately, tyler did discover it. In fact, had the A. MacArthur article not been published, it may have take longer for tyler to have discovered the shenanigans.

Tyler did a good job on the Mac srticle in pointing out various things.

Now I wonder what his response would be to TENNY and Company with the NAME calling AND threats in his article.

JFX You and SR were in it AF-Vet I Anita and another were DELETED on a consistant basis BECAUSE TENNY did not like the facts we posted HE THEN along with JAYWOW---I have NO problem naming names-----

BAITED the article and Invited a move off-topic BY calling many names EVEN THOUGH he knows better then there is the implied THREAT pointed at me. Af_Veteran, I Anita,Semper Fi and others ARE not TROLLS yet repeatedly TENNY and Others continued to use this as a way to keep the article off topic NO MATTER how WE tried to get it back to what IT was supposed to have been about!!

I would suggest Tyler look into Mr.Tenny's article --------------Here's a copy I just received.

Dear jscusmc69,

A comment of yours has been removed by the author of the post or seed it was written on. Authors are expected to be the moderators of the content contained in their own columns and are charged with keeping comment threads on-topic and free from offensive or otherwise inappropriate comments.


Your comment:

WHO YOU!!! ROFLMAO---You could'nt carry on a conversation or disscussion even if you looked into the mirror! And I say this to YOU--- if you--act like a child Tenny YOU will be treated as such--YOU need to grow up.

Can't read---I said I didn't vote for him either---THAT means McCain. Neither impressed me just like you don't either.

Thats ok Tenny as Complaints are on record about you and the phony way you handle posts against you and YOU AND your Agenda.

<strong>Are you threatening me??? IS That what you just said---"but don't just blatantly lie about me, you won't like the consequences"----</strong>

<strong>AND whay consequences are YOU THREATING ME WITH--I would be real careful on your choice of words TENNY---Threating a fellow NEWSVINER I'm sure is against the CoH--</strong>

I have NOT said any thing that's a lie OR called you any NAMES YOU on the other hand have.

<strong>IF YOU want to BAIT people TENNY you need to do a better job---AND for the record I accuse you and several others in this article of BAITING--- in order to FURTHER your own ego and garner more comments/votes.</strong>


Location of the discussion your comment was removed from:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/28/2872768-five-words-that-reveal-the-racist-right-v?commentId=7459652#c7459652

This is the same article that TENNY deleted a post about Sotomayor and her La Raza Board membership. Claiming it was copyrighted YET it was NOT it was a PRESS RELEASE!

JFX You and SR were in it AF-Vet I Anita and another were DELETED on a consistant basis BECAUSE TENNY did not like the facts we posted HE THEN along with JAYWOW---I have NO problem naming names-----

Me?

Didn't Tyler mention somewhere that more public accusations would result in suspensions? If you've got a beef, report it, and they'll investigate.

USAF---That was a typo sorry you took it wrong!

When you see obvious flamery

Except, I think 10 different people will have 10 different ideas about what constitutes obvious flamery.

Except, I think 10 different people will have 10 different ideas about what constitutes obvious flamery.

Very true.

17 &18: Any reporting mechanism is bound to be imperfect. The staff appears to be addressing a particular issue. However I can and do understand your concern. I do not fully understand how it works.

If a valid story or comment is group-collapsed and found not to violate coh why would it have been collapsed? If it appears merely due to differing opinion or ppl who through tracking appeared on story to w/sole purpose of collapsing this is where the issue is I think.

If staff looks @ the seed or comment and is found violation-free they have stated course of action. If they were to see maybe borderline inflammatory or coh violation perhaps uncollapse and warn but not enforce rule. This is what I envision.

Most are aware concerted oganizing effort was undertaken resulting in the loss of some members. It appears it was the activism which violated coh. They and others have claimed that it was, is and has been going on by others. I believe this because I have seen it.

The staff appears to have come up w/a way to deal w/this.

I would think that it is unlikely for the innocent to suffer but have heard a couple say they had fallen thru cracks.

I do not know how it could be dealt with but perhaps suggestions e-mailed to staff would be considered.

If a valid story or comment is group-collapsed and found not to violate coh why would it have been collapsed?

Perhaps because "X" number of people (there are approximately 500,000 users of Newvines - from what I understand) misinterpreted the same rules. Think about it, if "X" number of users was only .01% that would still be 50 users and I doubt that collapse requires that many reports. Just a guess, but I would figure the number is more like 10 to 15 people reporting.

Rule number 1 says, "Above all else, respect others." are you sure that you and I see "Respect" in the same way? This can be subjective. Especially if you are talking to individuals from 13 to 100. Not to mention the word inflammatory and how subjective that word is. I have seen some who will go ballistics if you say anything that hints that you do not approve of something President Obama has done.

If staff looks @ the seed or comment and is found violation-free they have stated course of action. If they were to see maybe borderline inflammatory or coh violation perhaps uncollapse and warn but not enforce rule.

That would be nice, but that is not what was said. This new policy isn't subject and actually draws a line not to cross when it says

If you report an article or seed that is censored and is subsequently restored by admins, you lose reporting privileges for a month.

It does not give leeway for mistakes or close calls. Even others on this thread see the rule as not having to tell the person who is suspended. Nor is there any mention of an appeals process if you break the new policy.

Most are aware concerted oganizing effort was undertaken resulting in the loss of some members. It appears it was the activism which violated coh. They and others have claimed that it was, is and has been going on by others.

I have seen several screaming about this, but the Titles of the articles are way across the line - I have not seen those article re-posted by the staff. The one article I have seen reposted was borderline (IMHO).

Just because someone screams they have been done wrong, does not necessarily make it true. Even Tyler says above

Also, very few articles have been censored by the community in my absence but I got just as many comment reports as ever.

So, the question becomes, "How many times does this actually happen out of the hundreds of thousands of posts that here?" I am also curious as to what the percentage of those removed are verses those replaced. After all, action had already been taken on this problem

From: Tyler's link above

Everyone who was even remotely tied to the bloc voting/reporting/collapsing through the Party with Frog Legs group is banned.

Taking orders from a banned user and attempting to bring down content based on disagreement rather than the CoH? That's the definition of 'contrary to the spirit and purpose'.

To all those who demanded disciplinary action earlier, it's being taken now because we've gathered the information, given Viners time to decide whether or not they wanted to participate, and now I feel confident that everyone getting banned played a part in the violations.

If the individuals involved in Bloc Voting/Bloc collapsing are being banned, then why implement this policy?

Being as I am #18 I ditto that so I don't have to write it. Plus Ben writes so much better then me.

Re 18.2: I think b/c banned individuals claimed that it was going on already and their actions a response to it. It apparently is a coh violation, to group-collapse for non coh violation, but because some are not formally organized I think these are the ones being targeted.

Re 18.2 & 18.3: Thank you for responses and input. I said I was unsure of some things. Just stated the way I thought it worked and what I hoped for. I do not know if I am correct or not.

When a person is banned from NewsVine all they have to do is start again with a new name until they are caught again. We also have many people who use several different names.

Why not publish on the comment the IP address. This might eliminate some of the problems with groups trying to game the system and those that have been banned or using many names to play that game.

or

When a person is banned, notify their provider that they have been banned. I don't know any provider that enjoys having people that can't behave in their system.

I know the programmers would hate me, but just thoughts.

I know, I'm a fine one to talk as I get a little hot under the collar sometimes but I'm trying. Don't go there :)

but because some are not formally organized I think these are the ones being targeted.

But why nuke a city to kill off two terrorist? Just an analogy, but this policy can hit many who acting in good faith.

I do not know if I am correct or not.

Neither do I. Yet, we do try - don't we?

#18.6

Why not publish on the comment the IP address.

That won't work if they have a dynamic IP (the address constantly changes). There are also programs to mask IP addresses.

When a person is banned, notify their provider that they have been banned.

Many IP Providers would be difficult at best to get hold of. Some would not care, as long as it was not a problem for them.

There are also programs to mask IP addresses.

Programs like that being used in conjuntion with using NV I've heard are also a violation of NV User Agreement.

Look around the vine, most of the conservative authors are reluctant to seed any articles. There is a reason for that reluctance.

That's odd. You'd think it would be *liberals* given the recent case of conservative bloc-voting that was uncovered.

It's also odd based on the fact that I read countless conservative articles day after day after day, usually because they're featured pretty prominently on the front page. They must have gotten over their reluctance pretty quickly.

I suppose that conservative depends on far far out left one is. If one is far out left enough everything looks conservative.

I suppose that conservative depends on far far out left one is. If one is far out left enough everything looks conservative.

And if your definition of conservative only includes the most extreme right, then most things will seem not to fit that definition...your point being what exactly?

I suppose that conservative depends on far far out left one is. If one is far out left enough everything looks conservative.

True enough-- but the reverse is also true (if one is on the extreme right-- everything looks sort of liberal!).

But, a far leftist POV yields this sort of viewpoint:

Obama's Trail of Broken Promises: Morphing Dick Cheney

(are Obama's views the same as Dick Cheney's? Good question. It all depends upon one's point of view! :)

I think we are getting a little off topic here, maybe.

I don't know how many of you are following the thread about "Are Gays Bigots".

It seems to me that this is a real problem for Tyler and Calvin. Handling this type of problem would drive anyone insane I would think.

Emotions and mouths are getting hotter and hotter and the moderator, IMO, is not even trying to control his own speech nor anyone elses.

Now my question, how should this be handled.

1. Go in a suspend all who are in violation?

2. Close the article?

3. Warn the moderator?

4. Ignore the whole damm thing?

I have my own feelings, but ???????????? And then how does anyone justify what they say to do??

Wow

Emotions and mouths are getting hotter and hotter and the moderator, IMO, is not even trying to control his own speech nor anyone elses.

Right. Scoggin tried once: He tried to insight anger and hatred with his first title, and his article was removed. He reposted with a second article, but if you read his comments, you can see what he's doing, and he's still trying to achieve his goal.

Plain and simple: There are at least 5 homophobes and bigots commenting on that thread, and they're dismissing valid and fair-minded commentary with stupid commentary.

But, I'm not going to report the content, even though I think he sucks as a moderator, because who knows? Maybe it shouldn't be deleted and maybe I'll lose my reporting privileges.

Jaywow67: When I walk by the tabloid is the supermarket that have headlines screaming that somebody is actually an extraterrestrial or that the end of the world will be on next Tuesday, or some garbage about gays, racism, etc. I don't get wrapped around the axle - I just walk on by and wonder about the kind of people who would be attracted to that sort of stuff.

I am not in favor of censorship. A CoH is somewhat pointless because as you can see those who need to be told to be civil are the ones who will ignore it.

1. Go in a suspend all who are in violation?

Why? Just because they are enjoying being trashy?

2. Close the article?

Again, why?

3. Warn the moderator?

What would that accomplish? You can't break an egg sucking dog of the habit.

4. Ignore the whole damm thing?

Yes, eventually they either go away or the system becomes a version of the Daily Inquirer. if Newsvine intended to stay out of the tabloid business they should have refrained from connecting to MSNBC. Professional journalism is tabloid sensationalism at its best.

Free press and free speech includes all of the people who talk because, unlike monkeys, they can, not because they should.

Is Newsvine supposed to be citizen journalists reporting the news or is it a platform for conforming educated opinions?

Interesting outlook Mordecai. Not saying I buy all of it, but interesting.

I just think that I need the unfiltered flow of information and I can sort out what I will or will not accept. I may consider someones "truth" to be just pure idiot garbage and someone else's touching story to be nothing more than mental masturbation, but that doesn't make me right. I get exposed to stories that I probably wouold not encounter otherwise because I would not waste my money on some tabloid like "Time" magazine. I have seen a lot of stupid articles here but I have to admit at least I did see them.

Good outlook indeed.

krishna-167929: I agree that the reverse is also true. From a far far right point of view everything looks "liberal". So how does that relate to my question to Tyler?

Well-- if you wish-- i could answer for Tyler-- but I would imagine he'd prefer to answer for himself :-)

I know who you're talking about. Oddly, he's already been mentioned.

I'm not going to get into the whos of it, or the past history, just trying to think toward the future.

You're on a roll, Rainkiss. Some really good ideas today. I do wonder whether the "offensive" tag would get overused, too. Just remains to be seen, I suppose.

Oh, it likely would... But, a FAQ outlining the proper use might cut back on it. I'm thinking for articles which contain pretty much any racism, any extreme -phobic crap, that kind of thing. Or, explicit sexual content... that kind of thing.

I feel the same way about it Rainkiss! There really needs to be a more specific "multiple choice" of why I hit the ! button. Or I would at least be able to explain (briefly) why. I think it would actually help the moderator's by understanding our reasoning behind our actions. Perhaps that way you can quickly tell if someone is abusing the ! or making an honest mistake. I hope the new policy won't discourage people from doing what they feel is right.

A "why" box would certainly be good... though it'd cost Tyler considerable amounts time to read through it all, so that's a trade-off.

Yes, an opportunity to explain why you feel the item broke the rules would be worthwhile for the staff and the individual doing the reporting. It would avoid misunderstandings.

Make it simple. In the ! button box, put up the CoH number and sub-violation letter and check the box that corrosponds to the violation. No reading for tyler, and the exact violation is recorded.

I really think there just needs to be a "failure to moderate" option.

Honestly, people who link content -- especially heated topics -- but have no intention of moderating should be reviewed and taken down after repeat violations.

Donald Turnbull comes to mind.

Brian,

I agree. There are people who post articles and then just let them fly on auto pilot. They are in violation of the CoH too!

Hear, hear, Brian. I can think of several cases in which the moderating really failed to live up to Newsvine's standards.

Speaking of which......

Tyler? You here?

Yeah, this article should probably be taken down. I'd report it, but...

Ellie,

Excellent Irony, LOL!

I agree, threads need to be moderated... however, people are much too happy to leap on top of people when something doesn't come down immediately. If you've got a hot topic, yeah, stay on top of it every couple hours, at least... But assuming that there are people who can monitor their threads every minute is a bit unrealistic. We don't LIVE here, we just play here.

That's the problem with being liked and admired...people miss you when you lay low!

Donald Turnbull doesn't even play here. I'm not talking about taking a few hours to go walk the dog and eat lunch. I'm talking about using Newsvine as a link farm, leaving an assholish first comment to stir the pot, and then disappearing in ever single link you seed.

He regularly gets 200+ comment threads, and never comments beyond his first provocation.

It seems like it's against the spirit of Newsvine, and it makes a mockery of the idea that moderation is supposedly deemed important.

Oh, trust me, Brian, I'm not saying that what you describe doesn't happen. I've seen it. But I've also seen people complaining when a post was up for all of twenty minutes, and they felt the seeder should have deleted it instantly.

Ellie,

I don't understand your comment:

That's the problem with being liked and admired...people miss you when you lay low!

Are you saying that people don't want to moderate because they are afraid of being disliked for thier opinions? Then they shouldn't post the seed or article.

I think she was joking, in reference to the other comments.

Yes, Brian is right.

Rainkiss, I've seen that, too. Or, sometimes you'll seed some little innocuous item thinking little of it, then take the weekend or evening off only to return to a multi-hundred comment flame war. Those things do happen; but, that's different from those who just seed and run as a rule. Some slack for the former needs to extended.

Exactly, Ellie. It's two related issues. Me, I figure that things related should be looked at together... If we toss in an "unmoderated" flag, Tyler's going to have to wade through complaints from people who want to @!$%# and moan because there's been something up for 10 minutes while the seed's owner is offline.

The problem is that individuals can post comments to your articles 24/7. You can not moderate 24/7.

Yes I can! Havn't you seen the hours I keep and for that matter, you keep too! LOL!

But in all seriousness, I think that during the time that have just posted the article/seed, it is your responsibility to be there for most of the time.

Hm... Maybe multiple "unmoderated" flags can flip the switch and stop all postings to the thread until the author and/or Tyler clears it?

Ok.......I actually take 10 minutes off to make coffee....... ;0 )

Hm... Maybe multiple "unmoderated" flags can flip the switch and stop all postings to the thread until the author and/or Tyler clears it?

That might be good, but I would add a timer. It kicks in if the individuals does not moderate in "X" amount of time (say 12 hours - sleep, shower, eat, etc.).

Now that is a good idea. But here is a question. How long is a person responsible to constantly moderate an article? The day it's first posted or more?

Good question! Of course, everyone is notified on the tracker when a new post is made on an article - even an old one. So should there be an expiration date?

I would say *at a minimum* within the 24-hour window that it can be prominently featured on the home page. After that time is up, it loses front page status anyway.

After that, moderation is still important, but 1) less likely to be needed and 2) people who do a good job in the first 24 hours usually tend to keep up after that.

Depends on the article, really... If I post something political, or, god help me, something on, say, same-sex marriage, abortion, or another "hot" topic, I'd probably want to keep a pretty tight rein on it for the first day or three, until the comments trickled down. Something posted in, say, Entertainment (which, I'm finding, draws a LOT fewer trolls), I've checked back often, and (cross fingers) haven't had to do a much at all in the way of moderating.

I wouldn't want to lay a hard-and-fast rule that you MUST remove any thing breaking CoH within 10 minutes during the first 24 hours, because, heck, lot of us have real lives and work.

Personally, if I find someone who doesn't moderate their threads, or, worse, moderates badly (deleting masses of posts based on disagreement, for example), I just stay away from their threads.

Those hot button issues can quickly gather hundreds of comments in a very short period of time - Just ask Perrie (gun control). She was moderating the first days comments for a week. LOL ;0 )

There's also the issue of time zones to consider. We have several international Viners who are prolific seeders/writers.

Yep, and we all need to sleep, sometime...

Here's a thought... Set up deputies for seeders/authors. So, if, for example, I'm going to be on vacation for a week, Perrie can moderate one or all of my seeds/articles.

I was gone for a week with no internet access. I changed my tag line (Thinking it through...) to read "Unmoderated column until (date). Play nice," instead.

That way, anyone who did click on my articles knew I was away and could take up any issues (there were none) directly with Tyler.

Ben,

Thanks for remembering that I had a weeks moderation on that article. What a nightmare. That was why I stopped taking any comments any longer. I tried the bow out method, but then it got out of control and I felt that was wrong, so I tried to return and moderate, but it was endless. I felt the responsible thing to do was not to accept any more comments, if I wasn't going to moderate, and that is what I did. I have to say, that I never thought of Ellie's idea of changing the tag line. That is quite innovative.

Thanks, Perrie! It was the only thing I could be reasonably sure they'd see at the top of the column. And, it appears on any article they might choose while you're away.

Perhaps a button for the Author that would allow showing "Away" or not excepting comments would be in order.

That could help the columnist to keep things under control or at the least notify Newsvine that the Author can not moderate.

Ellie and Ben you both got one vote up from me. Both great ideas. Now I have a question brought to me today by Spikegary. My article was about sex ed, but I did use Bristol Palins name as a spring board and to make the topic timely, but the whole content of the article was most definatly about sex ed. One person made a really rude comment about her, and another went off topic totally and tried to make it political. Gary thought I should have reported it. I chose to scold the rude poster (along with another viner) and the other I redirected to the article. Should have I reported, or did what I did?

Perrie,

What I'd do:

"This thread is not to discuss politics. Any further attempts to derail the subject from sex ed will be deleted."

Period. End of post.

The next post that goes up without discussing the subject gets deleted, and a follow-up post:

"Comment #25.39 deleted. Off-topic."

Repeat as required... and either ignore or forward to Tyler the nasty e-mails that may follow up this method.

Do it enough times, and particular trolls will go find easier prey.

I think I agree with Rainkiss. You are fair by warning and fair by deleting after you have warned.

Agreed. Your column, your rules (within the CoH, of course).

Perrie-your article was outstanding and what you said needed to be said-the people that went off the rails talking about who Bristol is a Whore (Bad enough) but the other that went on to blame it on her mother and how it was a political opportunity, I thought was way out of line, way off base and way off topic. Because I know you, I left that comment for you, as it's your article, but as a Moderator/Admin for the GNW Group, I felt I should say something. I didn't unclip the article from GNW, though it was verging on violating the guidelines of the GNW Group (NO POLITICS first and foremost), I felt that the message was more important as it was discussing sex education from the point of view of an expert (you, of course, as a long time teacher). As I ponted out, this same troll (with is a first name namesake with me) did the same kind of crap on one of Angel's GNW articles.

The whole point of that group is to highlight good news one day a week and the cardinal rule is no political discussions. period.

Perrie, just fyi, I have a personal rule that I ignore articles with Palin in the title until further notice. It's been a good one, though I've perhaps missed a good article here and there like yours.

I wish we could automatically ignore based upon something other than user! AND...I'd love to see a feature whereby ignored authors' seeds, articles and comments do not appear in the convo tracker.

Ellie,

I'd modify that request slightly... I'd have seeds which my friends have commented on but were authored by someone on my Ignore list flagged in the convo tracker, so I can decide before I get there if it's somewhere I want to go, and if I want to give a hit to someone who's annoyed me in the past. Maybe, in a column next to "source" put "seeder/author" with a flag field, blank, "friend," or "ignored."

An easier way to track by flag, or to, as Ellie would like, to ignore by flag, would be helpful, too.

Another good point, Rainkiss!

I seem to be on a roll this week. :D

Thanks for giving us a place to brainstorm, Tyler.

Gary,

I didn't mean to post it to GNW! The dog story is what I posted to GNW. Now I have to go back check it now. If I did, I am so sorry. I have made that mistake with invisable viners, too. No seeding there!

Gary, I just checked and it isn't on GNW, the dog story is!

Ellie,

The article used Bristol Palin as a spring name because it was timely and because it was a spring board for making parents own up to their responsibilities regarding their teens sexual behavior.

I never let it become political or accepted any personal attacks on the girl. Not only was it not the intent of the article (sex education was), I think it is gross to take a teenager to task publicly. As a mater of fact, at the end of the article I wrote,

I am not criticizing Bristol for doing her "Abstinence Tour". I truly think that the girl is trying to help her peers, and is also probably doing what her mother asked her to do, so I commend her for putting herself out there and being a good daughter. But know this, if you don't do what you're supposed to do as parents, you might have a Bristol Palin of your own. And that is the true cautionary tale.

The cautionary tale part was a pun from the move Juno, also mentioned in the article, where she refers to her large pregnant self as the "cautionary whale".

I hope you find this acceptable.

the people that went off the rails talking about who Bristol is a Whore (Bad enough) but the other that went on to blame it on her mother and how it was a political opportunity, I thought was way out of line, way off base and way off topic.

I realize that there are those who have "Stinking Thinking" and can make political debate out of a muffin recipe, but having Bristol in the article opens the door for a gray area.

Is it really off topic if you name a political name or in this case name a "tie-in" name?

Some folks are as dumb as bricks (probably only read the title) and would see it as open season. Others are extremely smart and can do the same (these are usually more careful to point out the tie-in - even if it is weak reasoning - in an effort to exploit the subjective nature of the rules).

I see your point Gary, but there some gray areas.

usaf: Hey I like that. Muffins indeed. :D

Muffin recipes? What have you got against bagels, anyway? /grin

What have you got against bagels, anyway?

That would all depend on where they stand on the whole grain issue.......

;0 )

But do you knead to the right or the left?

Perrie-sorry, my mistake.

Personally, I knead to both the right and then to the left! Sometimes, I Knead just to the middle.

I am just a "Knead-y" person. LOL ;0 )

Sometimes, you've just gotta let your mind run with the last couple comments before scrolling back and getting the context. /blush

People....people who knead people...are the luckiest people...in the world....