POLL: Should Reporting Be Anonymous?

Author: drafterman

Posts

Total: 312
#121
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@RationalMadman
There are benefits to anomininity, for example if someone is unpopular or made a statement in the past that won't be considered in judgement.  There is no risk of intimidation, and moderators have less problems to go wrong.   What benefits are there to cutting out anonomous reporting?

#122
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
There are benefits to anonymity, for example if someone is unpopular or made a statement in the past.
- Plisken

If you cannot trust the mods to not prey on the unpopular, the solution is 0% report anonymity and 100% the mechanism by which the mods have gained and maintained power. Either make another site or work out a way to overthrow/reform them sustainably and then bring justice.

I already said the benefits so I won't go into that.
#123
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@drafterman
your specific abuse of the system, in the way you did it, that time - was fixed because you stopped being an a*****e and reporting every vote - not because they enacted limited

you could STILL report within the voting limits, or start up a proxy account’- and have the same effect. So no: the one major instance of disruption - from you - where an internet d*** decided to abuse reporting facilities is still more than possible, and is not solvable without anonymity being removed.

Im sorry that you appear to have reported every vote, disrupted this website, caused the mods to remove anonymity to find out who you are - and then make you stop - that’s EXACTLY what’s supposed to happen, and how this is supposed to work. 

You used the system abusively, and are now asking for a policy that would prevent you from being caught or dealt with again.


#124
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,225
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@drafterman
I confess I'm still not clear on why you were reporting our votes. Forgive me, I'm sure you've already explained it elsewhere. Was it to point out vulnerabilities in the CoC?
#125
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Standard users do not have the authority to use reports abusively....we can persuade the mods or we can just be generally stupid.  
#126
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Plisken
Standard users do not have the authority to use reports abusively.
- Plisken

Do you comprehend what report-spam is?
#127
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@RationalMadman
I would assume report spam is an attempt to render moderation efforts ineffective by overloading their capacity.  

#128
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Plisken
The leader of the proposition has PROUDLY done this both before it was removed-anonymity and post-anonymity just to prove that the system is flawed and make us hate the mods and system.

Want me to cite him admitting it? It will take some digging for the admitting during anonymity but he explicitly admitted it.
#129
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@RationalMadman
That might be helpful.  I would suggest working whats appropriate with him via private message so this thread doesn't turn this thread into a #### show of accusations and defense. Do you believe Drafterman should be banned for his reporting?

Topic's author
#130
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Ramshutu
your specific abuse of the system, in the way you did it, that time - was fixed because you stopped being an a*****e and reporting every vote - not because they enacted limited

you could STILL report within the voting limits, or start up a proxy account’- and have the same effect. So no: the one major instance of disruption - from you - where an internet d*** decided to abuse reporting facilities is still more than possible, and is not solvable without anonymity being removed.
But it was solved. The issue was never about the amount of reports nor was the loss of anonymity even given to the mods to fix it.

Firstly, let's acknowledge that the amount of reports wasn't a technical issue for the site. It was 70 reports in 4 days. 70 extra packets of information the site had to handle. The issue was in the extra workload of the mods in responding to those reports. Specifically:

"Each report, even on full forfeit debates, takes about 5 minutes to process, and on borderline cases, a report can take up to 10 minutes to process. That's more than 4 hours worth of reports."

But, why does it take 5-10 minutes to respond to a report? The answer is: because the mods decided that it did! The issue at hand (at least the issue I had) was the insane and stupid voting requirements (something I believe you agree with). It was an issue that wasn't being addressed simply because not enough people were speaking up about it in a way that the mods were willing to listen.

So I made it an issue they couldn't ignore. What I exploited wasn't anonymity, it was the mods personal and voluntary decision that every single vote report needed a wordy, bespoke message. Consider that if I had tried this with comments there wouldn't have been an issue because the mods have a double standard here.

By forcing the mods to apply their ridiculous standard to every single vote they were forced to acknowledge that the standard was ridiculous. This has nothing to do with anonymity. Anonymity didn't cause this issue and the loss of anonymity didn't fix it. What fixed it was changing the standard of voting: Mods now don't have to respond to every vote and what vote constitutes deletion (and therefore a more lengthy report) has been changed in favor of keeping the vote. All of these are sensible and well received changes, brought about by the mods seeing how ridiculous the previous standard was.

As an aside, Mike never granted the mods this level of visibility deliberately, it was merely a side effect of the new moderation panel he created.

Im sorry that you appear to have reported every vote, disrupted this website, caused the mods to remove anonymity to find out who you are - and then make you stop - that’s EXACTLY what’s supposed to happen, and how this is supposed to work. 

You used the system abusively, and are now asking for a policy that would prevent you from being caught or dealt with again.
You seem to be under the impression that once the mods saw it was me, they "dealt" with me and it stopped. This isn't correct. They approached me about it, yes. I asked if this was a violation of the CoC. Do you know what happened?

NOTHING.

Nothing because it wasn't a violation of any rules. Nothing because they had no actual cause or basis on which to do anything with me. Did they ban me? No. Did they remove my ability to make reports? No. Did they try and convince me to stop? No. Did they do anything after I continued reporting votes after anonymity was lost? No.

The inadvertent loss of anonymity did nothing to solve this problem. The problem stopped because I decided to stop. And I decided to stop because I saw the changes being made. Generally people stop protesting when the thing they're protesting against goes away. Even then, even if I still wanted to be a dick, it's no longer a viable avenue because it wouldn't create the same workload for the mods that it previously did.

Again, none of this having to do with the loss of anonymity.
Topic's author
#131
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Castin
You can check out my post above, where I explain it.

As an addition to that, consider that the vote reporting shouldn't have had an adverse affect on the public community. But it did, because a large number of votes were deleted as a response. But let me ask you this:

If the votes were legitimately bad votes, should their removal bother the community?
If the votes weren't legitimately bad votes, their removal should bother the community, but shouldn't the ire be directed at the standard that judged them inappropriate?

#132
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
We see here the type of person we are dealing with. He is everything a user should aim not to be to moderation. He is not a 'rival improving moderation' through healthy competition, oh no he is a malignant force trying to exploit each and every hole in the system until the mods, who work for free, are so stressed by it all (his protests combined with his report spamming and the others joining in with it) that he makes the mods angrier and less happy such that they perform worse and worse.

Do not be fooled by Drafterman everyone, he thought he'd have an easy steamroll here 'til he realised that he's not the only Sigma Wolf in town.
#133
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you agree with where he stands?  How should he be punished for report spamming?  

#134
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Plisken
What do you mean do I agree with where he stands? It is very obvious I do not. He should be banned for a week.
#135
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@RationalMadman
That sounds like an effective way for administration to reduce their workload while maintaining the integrity of moderation.  There could be a division of labor or heirchy to reduce the amount of bias in your preferred system.  Its not possible to ban members for spamming reports under current policy though, as far as I'm aware.  

#136
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@drafterman
Put me down for a no.

If a mod feels like knowing the source of a report might bias them, you could always give each mod the option of masking the source.
Topic's author
#137
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9

#138
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but people keep bringing up spam reporting, and there is a cap in place on the amount of reports that can be done at a time?

So how is spam reporting even an issue if you can't spam cause theres a cap? 

#139
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Buddamoose
It's not.  You could report the next day, or if you really need to you can always send a private message.  
#140
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Buddamoose
The cap is firstly only on vote reports as far as we are told, secondly it was only made due the abuse that one member intentionally did to overload the mods.
Topic's author
#141
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Buddamoose
One person suggested that multiaccounting could be used to get around the limit, but multiaccounting is already a violation.

Others haven't really explained why report spam is still an issue given the current limits.
#142
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Plisken
It's not, you can report the next day, or if you really need to you can always send a private message.

Yes, and you can always just create another account and mask your IP through a VPN if you want to workaround the lack of anonymity. Looks like your idea doesn't solve the problem your bringing up either, now does it? 
#143
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Buddamoose
If you mask VPN, mask your computer type, screen resolution and all of that to terrorise the site, you're a fucking criminal and hopefully you slip at some point. That's not the issue at hand.
#144
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@drafterman
One person suggested that multiaccounting could be used to get around the limit, but multiaccounting is already a violation.

Multiaccounting could be done in either situation? It's not like it's difficult to set up a VPN and make your IP untraceable/unbannable. 

What I'm seeing from "people could spam report" is, "but people could be dicks!?". When ok, people can be dicks anytime anywhere and theres really nothing you can do to stop it if they're determined. 


Further, it's not like there wouldnt be earmarks present that somebodies spam reporting. See 10 reports get filed day after day on pretty much the same people? Oh shit, what you probably got there is spam reporting. However, this wouldn't still remove the responsibility to briefly examine the reports to determine the veracity. Key being briefly. 

Way i see it, a lack of anonymity is just going to turn into a convenient excuse to ignore reports entirely depending on source. "This person has reported every day the max amount for a week. This justifies ignoring these reports." 

Just wait and see acceptable reports end up being discarded immediately. It's gonna blow up and end up creaating a bigger issue.

#145
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Buddamoose
The way I see it, a lack of anonymity is just going to turn into a convenient excuse to ignore reports entirely depending on the source. "This person has reported every day the max amount for a week. This justifies ignoring these reports."

Just wait and see; acceptable reports end up being discarded immediately.
- Buddamoose

If you think moderation won't actively deal with (first in a friendly, informing manner and later in a harsher, enforcing manner) report-spammers effectively then help us build the part of CoC entirely dedicated to outlining a system of helping noobs who don't know what and what-not to report as well as grudge voters be dealt with in a humane, efficient manner.
Topic's author
#146
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Buddamoose
Preaching to the choir. I'll admit I'm surprised at the number of people who are so cavalier about it and it boggles my mind given the available information. But I stand by the results. I think that most people are ambivalent or don't care because they don't imagine it could hurt them.

#147
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Your presenting a lack of anonymity in reporting as something that will solve the issues you are presenting. It will not, and will end up creaating a nice big incentive and avenue to disregard reports fullstock. 

I'm sorry, but ur offering up a path of least resistance and going, "certainly nobody will take that path as often as possible and instead will still choose the more difficult path that involves the most work(resistance.)

That's straight up naive. You might as well lay down in front of a bear with BBQ sauce slathered all over you with the expectation you won't turn into a tasty morsel. You'd get similar results on both bets fmpov.
#148
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@drafterman
IMO, the person reported should know who reported them, but this should be done in private. There has to be a way of defending yourself from malicious accusations. If you do not meet the standards laid out in the rule then the report is justified.
#149
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You're presenting a lack of anonymity in reporting as something that will solve the issues you are presenting. It will not
Why not?

Lack of anonymity will end up creating a nice big incentive and avenue to disregard reports fullstock.
If the mods are that corrupt/lazy/malignant, we need to replace them. That should be the only solution. If they were that corrupt, why would they be honest about the lack of anonymity in the first place?

I'm sorry, but you're offering up a path of least resistance.
Actually, that is what your side is doing. They assume the minimalist, least-effort, least-benefit moderation system is optimal. It's not.
#150
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PGA2.0
That will be an issue. The reporter should be anonymous to non-mods unless the reporter wishes to come out publicly. Do you agree that to mods themselves, reporters should not be anonymous?

The latter is the only debate at hand.