-->
@drafterman
Your mass-reporting of votes ceased in immediate temporal proximity to your being identified as the culprit. I see no other reasonable explanation for the change in your activity.
POLL: Should Reporting Be Anonymous?
Posts
Total:
312
-->
@bsh1
Depends on how loose your definition of "immediate temporal proximity." I certainly didn't stop at that moment or in that day. I made the decision to stop (and not just stop, but unreport the votes I had reported) sometime after this thread here which was several days after my thread here. And I've explained my reason for doing so.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or some argument as to why my stated reasoning is doesn't count as an "other reasonable explanation"?
-->
@bsh1
Don't engage him, he will play the role of good guy instead of bad guy who outed himself to deny that you made him stop by catching him in the act.
People always thought that I was like this. To be honest, I was but as I matured, noone got to see how I changed and so I stayed banned for years.
The more you engage drafterman, the more he will lie and deceive. I can't use the word to describe him but you know what he is. You handle his type by being just as ruthless and cunning.
-->
@drafterman
I certainly didn't stop at that moment or in that day.
As far as I can reckon, you did. No additional mass-reports came in to our report feed once it was made clear to you that reports were not anonymous.
-->
@bsh1
Well, I'm not going to argue with what you "reckon." I've given my reason, which contradicts yours. So you can either accept that or imply that I'm lying.
-->
@drafterman
The point where you try to force me to insult you is the point where this conversation ends.
-->
@bsh1
The implication is there already. I've provided my reason. You've provided yours. They are mutually exclusive. So long as you continue to suggest that yours is the truth, the implication is that mine is not. Whether that's insulting or not is immaterial to those facts.
I'm just wondering if you're actually willing to articulate the logical consequence of your claim.
Yes
-->
@blamonkey
@Sophocles
Your input here would be useful. This is about anonymity to the mods themselves.
-->
@drafterman
No.
Man we need a polls section here.
-->
@Mharman
Correct on both accounts.
The poll is closed.
It's closed because you're losing 18-19. :)
-->
@RationalMadman
There is not too much input I could give. I personally think that the cap of posts could possibly limit some of overuse of reports. However, even with the cap, I do not know how overwhelmed the mods are with the current influx of reports. I would like to hear more from the mods on this issue before making any sort of analysis. I do see some merit to the proposal, as anonymity could make people feel more comfortable in reporting votes, posts etc. Nevertheless, I cannot conclusively form a position without the mods telling us how this would affect the amount of reporting occurring, the time it takes to sift through bad reports, and whether the issue would be exacerbated with anonymous reporting. If DDO used this method, I would want to hear from Airmax about the viability of the program on this site and the complications that could arise out of such a decision.
-->
@blamonkey
DDO 100% forces you to reveal who you are and makes you type why you're reporting it. You can't report there without an account and it only lets you report without captcha if you are identified by Max in the same way it doesn't let you vote without.
Post 240 is the correct take.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
It's not.
-->
@drafterman
Depends on how loose your definition of "immediate temporal proximity." I certainly didn't stop at that moment or in that day. I made the decision to stop (and not just stop, but unreport the votes I had reported) sometime after this thread here which was several days after my thread here. And I've explained my reason for doing so.Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or some argument as to why my stated reasoning is doesn't count as an "other reasonable explanation"?
Your first two links are to the same thread.
-->
@RationalMadman
Agreed.It's not.
Hmm. draft says he did not stop spam reporting after being discovered; bish says he did stop spam reporting after being discovered. I have no evidence of either claim and it would be fairly silly to pursue it.
Not that it matters now for any reason, but I'll have to personally stick with no anonymity. I am forced to conclude that, regardless of the most recent case involving drafter, knowing the identity of a report spammer would in general be of greater use in apprehending them than not knowing the identity of a report spammer.
Lol how anyone can say disagree with the substance of what Bossy said is beyond me. If you don't like the work, don't sign up for the job.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
You don't like the site's power scheme or how anonymous reporting is/isn't, run away. See how that works? :)
But what should I even expect from the resident genius.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
You should expect me to turn your own logic against you so that the only reply left is one mocking me instead of my arguments.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
"Trouble for the mods" is not something worth considering unless the change would end moderation. BSH signed up for this, Virtuoso signed up for this, Mike signed up for this. Unless they're going to quit if reporting becomes anonymous -- and unless they're irreplaceable -- who cares.
The problem with Bossy's statement is that it suggests that any amount of work is somehow okay to place on the mods' shoulders. The mods and Mike have a right to free time. I am certainly happy to do quite a lot of work, and I have. But it is prima facie unreasonable to require any mod--irrespective of who that mod is--to put in 40 hours of work on DART in addition to their IRL duties. That's basically what massive levels of intentional spam reporting does. I already put in around 30 hours regularly and that's fine, and I am willing to occasionally put in more, but not as a regular thing. So yeah, trouble for the mods should not be the primary argument against any useful policy or user right. But it's not a totally unreasonable argument either.
-->
@bsh1
And this, of course, is not an entirely honest way of depicting the situation. The majority of the work was work you created for yourself (which has been partially remedied). The only actual work a report entails is: reading the vote/comment in question and deciding if action needs to be taken. This is seconds, maybe 1-2 minutes of necessary work.
-->
@drafterman
That's not quite an honest way of depicting the situation. We continued to implement standards of vote moderation that were used on DDO because these methods were tried and tested, and because they provided continuity. It was largely felt among vote moderation that there was a real obligation to continue to implement those practices until the community here overrode them, as it has now done. To say that we created the work for ourselves implies that we took actions designed to increase our workload beyond existing requirements, when really what we did was do what we saw was already required.And this, of course, is not an entirely honest way of depicting the situation. The majority of the work was work you created for yourself (which has been partially remedied).The only actual work a report entails is: reading the vote/comment in question and deciding if action needs to be taken. This is seconds, maybe 1-2 minutes of necessary work.
Moreover, the evaluation of votes can, itself, take up to 10 minutes depending on the difficulty of the case. There may be certain questions moderators have which require them to consult with other moderators, and there may be cases which are difficult in generally to evaluate. While the mode is about a minute, the average is probably in excess, at least for me, of 2 minutes. Each vote deserves thoughtful consideration.
-->
@bsh1
That's not quite an honest way of depicting the situation. We continued to implement standards of vote moderation that were used on DDO because these methods were tried and tested, and because they provided continuity.
Who decided there should be continuity? The decision that DART should be DDO 2.0 seems to have been made unilaterally.
It was largely felt among vote moderation that there was a real obligation to continue to implement those practices until the community here overrode them, as it has now done. To say that we created the work for ourselves implies that we took actions designed to increase our workload beyond existing requirements, when really what we did was do what we saw was already required.
No, it only implies that the work was voluntary and not inherent in the duties of a moderator. Which it was. Itsays nothing of the intention or design of that workload.
Moreover, the evaluation of votes can, itself, take up to 10 minutes depending on the difficulty of the case. There may be certain questions moderators have which require them to consult with other moderators, and there may be cases which are difficult in generally to evaluate. While the mode is about a minute, the average is probably in excess, at least for me, of 2 minutes. Each vote deserves thoughtful consideration.
Edge cases should be extraordinarily rare. If it is the case that all votes are reported and this results in a significant chunk of time engaged in such activity, then that is a reflection on the evaluation process. For a vast majority of votes (>=90%), if it is not immediately and abundantly clear that it should be removed, then it should remain, and that's that.