Need your input: Making reports on members public
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
public accountability
And this, in a nutshell, is what it's all about.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
We're discussing changes to the member reporting system and I wanted your input as a sanity check. At the moment when a member's account is closed due to reports, it disappears. It's like it never happened and no one can prove anything. It's like we provide the alibi and the getaway car. We're going to change this so that if an account is closed due to a member or members reporting that account, a list of all those who reported the account will be shown. I would be proud to have my name shown as the one who stopped a spammer in their tracks, and I'd also be happy to hold my head up if I had to close an account of a member who was being abusive and disruptive. Not everyone feels the same, however, and so I'm expecting some members will stop reporting spammers/abusers when this change is made. That's fine, as long as there are members still willing to do the right thing. So my question is: Do you feel these changes will have a net positive or net negative effect on our site's membership and its ability to control spam and abuse?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
We're discussing changes to the member reporting system and I wanted your input as a sanity check. At the moment when a member's account is closed due to reports, it disappears. It's like it never happened and no one can prove anything. It's like we provide the alibi and the getaway car. We're going to change this so that if an account is closed due to a member or members reporting that account, a list of all those who reported the account will be shown. I would be proud to have my name shown as the one who stopped a spammer in their tracks, and I'd also be happy to hold my head up if I had to close an account of a member who was being abusive and disruptive. Not everyone feels the same, however, and so I'm expecting some members will stop reporting spammers/abusers when this change is made. That's fine, as long as there are members still willing to do the right thing. So my question is: Do you feel these changes will have a net positive or net negative effect on our site's membership and its ability to control spam and abuse?
cheers Chris Maunder
Isn't the problem that some of our longest serving members do things that could be classed as abusive sometimes and we are being asked to 'vote abusive' rather than vote for a 'member to be removed for abuse'. I'm assuming this change in thinking has been triggered by recent high profile members accounts being removed. I'm also assuming that these were closed because of Abuse votes rather than Spam votes and that these abuse votes were collected over a period of time. I also get the impression from some of your comments in this thread that there were some high-ranking or 'upstanding' members amongst those who voted for those accounts to be removed. (I'm guessing that if you looked back at why they voted at that point in time there will be a genuine reason for it) For example a long-standing member might call someone an 'anal-pore' or get drunk and make a post with a lot of unnecessary swearing in it or be condescending to someone in Q&A. a.) Do we vote those as abusive. b.) Or do we say to ourselves he's made a big contribution in the past so we ignore it. Now nobody wants those members to removed, but at the same time the posts still can be classed as abusive. If we select b.) then we are being asked to judge members differently, depending on who they are. I guess what I am trying to say is 'vote abusive' gives the impression that your single vote will go straight to an admin, who will read it immediately and then give the recepient a scolding and a warning for being abusive. It doesn't imply that your vote will go on some database somewhere and it will stay there and not be looked at until sometime, far of in the future, when that account has accumulated enough votes to be closed.
-
We're discussing changes to the member reporting system and I wanted your input as a sanity check. At the moment when a member's account is closed due to reports, it disappears. It's like it never happened and no one can prove anything. It's like we provide the alibi and the getaway car. We're going to change this so that if an account is closed due to a member or members reporting that account, a list of all those who reported the account will be shown. I would be proud to have my name shown as the one who stopped a spammer in their tracks, and I'd also be happy to hold my head up if I had to close an account of a member who was being abusive and disruptive. Not everyone feels the same, however, and so I'm expecting some members will stop reporting spammers/abusers when this change is made. That's fine, as long as there are members still willing to do the right thing. So my question is: Do you feel these changes will have a net positive or net negative effect on our site's membership and its ability to control spam and abuse?
cheers Chris Maunder
My concern is that without additional changes it will only encourage more bad behavior. Currently if Idiots 1-N gang up on Respected Member Y and suspend Y's account; the peanut gallery in the Lounge is limited to raging about the idiots in a new thread. If you make the votes public I worry that Peanutters 1-M will instead go on a rage banning rampage against Idiots 1-N creating a larger mess at least in the short term. My bigger worry is that letting spammers/trolls know who's repeatedly nuking them until they glow will end up with them creating a swarm of sock puppets to wage banfare back. To limit the problems I'd suggest: 0) Preventing new/low rep accounts from being able to raise abuse flags entirely. (Or at least limiting their ability to do so severely; reduced weight and unable to do anything without at least one flag from a more senior account.) 1) Don't allow any number of flags to kill platinum (and gold?) members accounts without confirmation from at least one CP Staff Member or user with Protector status. (I'm assuming that you've kept any of the flag abusers out of that group since the last thing they need is more power on the site.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
This defeats the purpose.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris, I do not think it does (or more correctly, that it has to) As a NEW user, I would not feel confident with that information showing up. But after a year or two, I think it would be a badge of honor. Is there any way to tie this to the members choice + their rank? (The demi-gods on the forum cannot opt out. But us lowly servants can?)
-
Chris, I do not think it does (or more correctly, that it has to) As a NEW user, I would not feel confident with that information showing up. But after a year or two, I think it would be a badge of honor. Is there any way to tie this to the members choice + their rank? (The demi-gods on the forum cannot opt out. But us lowly servants can?)
Making it a choice defeats the purpose.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
My concern is that without additional changes it will only encourage more bad behavior. Currently if Idiots 1-N gang up on Respected Member Y and suspend Y's account; the peanut gallery in the Lounge is limited to raging about the idiots in a new thread. If you make the votes public I worry that Peanutters 1-M will instead go on a rage banning rampage against Idiots 1-N creating a larger mess at least in the short term. My bigger worry is that letting spammers/trolls know who's repeatedly nuking them until they glow will end up with them creating a swarm of sock puppets to wage banfare back. To limit the problems I'd suggest: 0) Preventing new/low rep accounts from being able to raise abuse flags entirely. (Or at least limiting their ability to do so severely; reduced weight and unable to do anything without at least one flag from a more senior account.) 1) Don't allow any number of flags to kill platinum (and gold?) members accounts without confirmation from at least one CP Staff Member or user with Protector status. (I'm assuming that you've kept any of the flag abusers out of that group since the last thing they need is more power on the site.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
Dan Neely wrote:
Preventing new/low rep accounts from being able to raise abuse flags entirely
Already in place. You need to be silver or above.
Dan Neely wrote:
Don't allow any number of flags to kill platinum (and gold?) members accounts without confirmation from at least one CP Staff Member or user with Protector status
This is something we need to add.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Isn't the problem that some of our longest serving members do things that could be classed as abusive sometimes and we are being asked to 'vote abusive' rather than vote for a 'member to be removed for abuse'. I'm assuming this change in thinking has been triggered by recent high profile members accounts being removed. I'm also assuming that these were closed because of Abuse votes rather than Spam votes and that these abuse votes were collected over a period of time. I also get the impression from some of your comments in this thread that there were some high-ranking or 'upstanding' members amongst those who voted for those accounts to be removed. (I'm guessing that if you looked back at why they voted at that point in time there will be a genuine reason for it) For example a long-standing member might call someone an 'anal-pore' or get drunk and make a post with a lot of unnecessary swearing in it or be condescending to someone in Q&A. a.) Do we vote those as abusive. b.) Or do we say to ourselves he's made a big contribution in the past so we ignore it. Now nobody wants those members to removed, but at the same time the posts still can be classed as abusive. If we select b.) then we are being asked to judge members differently, depending on who they are. I guess what I am trying to say is 'vote abusive' gives the impression that your single vote will go straight to an admin, who will read it immediately and then give the recepient a scolding and a warning for being abusive. It doesn't imply that your vote will go on some database somewhere and it will stay there and not be looked at until sometime, far of in the future, when that account has accumulated enough votes to be closed.
Excellent points. Part of my motivation is to provide you guys with the tools to protect the site and community without us needing to intervene. I don't want to spend my days reviewing every complaint against a member, and you guys don't want to have to wait for me or Sean to get around to reviewing complaints.
P0mpey3 wrote:
Now nobody wants those members to removed
This is the crux, and it's probably best solved by adding an "immune" flag to accounts that are above a certain threshold.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Downvoting where?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Downvoting where?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
H.Brydon wrote:
If you make the above info public, I won't likely do any of the spam/abuse maintenance any more.
Out of interest: why? Because you fear retribution by the black magic spammers? (And no, I'm not being facetious). I think you over estimate the amount they care.
cheers Chris Maunder