[please delete] FEEDBACK COMMENT - Community moderation

[jiminski]

yours too mate! We had practically the same idea to the same problem.. So I reckon we should all be able to get a good brief between us!

[jiminski]

here's another idea that encompass the best of both worlds. lets say that any comments under 3 stars (average) automatically gets submitted for review as per the urban dictionary method and anything over gets immediately posted. this would remove the bulk of the mod load as the good feedback doesn't need to be scrutinized and this would also help curb retaliatory/inappropriate feedback because everybody would know that it was going to be reviewed before it was posted.
sure some asshat could post 4-5 stars and leave a load of crap, but people would be less likely to care because it doesn't negatively affect their ratings.

hehe i do really like it .. but the point you make at the end would make it food and drink to our more comically minded members .. heheh i may even fall foul to temptation of given a 5 and then calling the player a 'tosser!' !

[homes32]

Quoted to get this on the top of the new page

here's another idea that encompass the best of both worlds. lets say that any comments under 3 stars (average) automatically gets submitted for review as per the urban dictionary method and anything over gets immediately posted. this would remove the bulk of the mod load as the good feedback doesn't need to be scrutinized and this would also help curb retaliatory/inappropriate feedback because everybody would know that it was going to be reviewed before it was posted.
sure some asshat could post 4-5 stars and leave a load of crap, but people would be less likely to care because it doesn't negatively affect their ratings.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree that we need a change ... and this might well be a solution. BUT, I have ACTUALLY MADE ANOTHER SUGGESTION ALREADY. If interested, read it. One has a poll attached, and room to add another suggestion. (I will add this suggestion, with a link)

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53466

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53405

I think the basic problem is that moderation just does not work for the same reason this current system does not work. There is plain and simple disagreement over what makes a "good" or "reasonable" player and what constitutes a "jerk" or someone you don't want to play with.

Although I did have one comment removed under the old system (and one was voluntarily removed when I objected), I actually think just plain leaving the comments alone is best ... with a chance to response.

The truth is that most of us coulld look through the old neg comments and get a reasonable grasp on what happened -- did someone's computer go bad for a time? to me, that is no big deal and I would play that person. Was someone the recipient of some notoriously erroneous feedback from one of the few poor sports? I mean, if I see a someone saying "this person was a homosexual #@@^, who does not know how to play." and look at the commentary and see ... nothing, I am quite likely to put the person LEAVING the comment on my ignore list.

I realize this DOES mean some nasty comments will be left. But, as I said above, those tend to be pretty easy to see ... at least in time.

Anyway, if you are interested in my idea (actually 2.. one is just to keep the old system, but eliminate moderation) OR want a different system, here is the link ... and the poll.

the difference is that there is no real 'weight' to the comment; it is not a Neg or a Positive in the old style... it is just a comment...
the parameters for approval will be more based in decency. than anything else and the statements can be completely subjective .. if wild assertions are made regarding gameplay, it will be very easy to spot.

This is one of the suggestions already on "my" thread ( I just started it, I don't consider it "mine").

The variability is actually why I want the comments UNmoderated, except, as you say for decency. In a community this large there is no "one" standard. The key is to let people be able to decide for themselves. This is why highlighting the negatives is important. If you are going to play someone does it really matter to you if they are considered the "most wonderful person on the site" or just that they are "decent". I would suggest that latter. It is nice to hear "kudos", but friends lists, the wall, or PM's can do that just as well.

Most people want to know who the "jerks" are... and a few have their own particular issues. Some want "super quick" play, for example. Some want someone to chat a lot.... etc.

The only really uniform issue is extreme language and threats. Language moderation, with a few exceptions, could largely be just autmatically edited. if someone says F***O**, it would automatically be changed to either **** or @#%. There might have to be a contingency for real threats (something like someone posting another person's real address and phone number, for example) and racist comments (harder to auto-fix than straight language). But, those instances would be so much fewer than the current system as to be "doable". Also, those few instances would be serious enough that I believe moderator intervention (and perhaps some way to make it quicker intervention as well, especially if the threat issue ever arises) is warranted.

[jiminski]

hmm... i used to read both Pos and Neg Feedback in the old system.. It genuinely helped me in deciding whether to join some games.
Sure the Negs were a big factor but a Positive comment from someone i trust, often went a very long way in helping me.

[homes32]

here's another idea that encompass the best of both worlds. lets say that any comments under 3 stars (average) automatically gets submitted for review as per the urban dictionary method and anything over gets immediately posted. this would remove the bulk of the mod load as the good feedback doesn't need to be scrutinized and this would also help curb retaliatory/inappropriate feedback because everybody would know that it was going to be reviewed before it was posted.
sure some asshat could post 4-5 stars and leave a load of crap, but people would be less likely to care because it doesn't negatively affect their ratings.

hehe i do really like it .. but the point you make at the end would make it food and drink to our more comically minded members .. heheh i may even fall foul to temptation of given a 5 and then calling the player a 'tosser!' !

yeah it could be fun. but on a serious note if the person is really out to trash a person is he likely to give a 4 or 5 just to say something stupid? not likely.

I think we have something going here...

[PLAYER57832]

hmm... i used to read both Pos and Neg Feedback in the old system.. It genuinely helped me in deciding whether to join some games.
Sure the Negs were a big factor but a Positive comment from someone i trust, often went a very long way in helping me.

Actually, in at least 2 suggestions (to date) you would not lose the positives. Positive comments could easily be added to my drop-down system, too.

I am just saying that it is nice to have the good and bad comments separated so that you can quickly see whichever type you wish.

I want to know if the 10 negs someone left were because the person had a "temper tantrum" or a computer issue.

BUT, though I won't clog up this thread any more with other ideas, I have space in the one I generated for several more unique suggestions.

[jiminski]

here's another idea that encompass the best of both worlds. lets say that any comments under 3 stars (average) automatically gets submitted for review as per the urban dictionary method and anything over gets immediately posted. this would remove the bulk of the mod load as the good feedback doesn't need to be scrutinized and this would also help curb retaliatory/inappropriate feedback because everybody would know that it was going to be reviewed before it was posted.
sure some asshat could post 4-5 stars and leave a load of crap, but people would be less likely to care because it doesn't negatively affect their ratings.

hehe i do really like it .. but the point you make at the end would make it food and drink to our more comically minded members .. heheh i may even fall foul to temptation of given a 5 and then calling the player a 'tosser!' !

yeah it could be fun. but on a serious note if the person is really out to trash a person is he likely to give a 4 or 5 just to say something stupid? not likely.

I think we have something going here...

to get a comment past moderation? sure they would... heheh i could name 30 users now who would give a 5 in order to call another a "syphilitic little whore-monger from Abergavenny!" in their feedback.

... it's a good point do we allow that? no expletives .. it could just be for fun with a friend... it would make me laugh!


How about this:- everyone gets a chance to leave Feedback, with first refusal by the recipient of the comment! then if they do not approve, it goes to the 'Comment Forum' for approval by the community.

ie. the Feedback only goes immediately live if the recipient clicks the thumbs up box.

[homes32]

How about this? everyone gets a chance to leave Feedback, with first refusal by the recipient of the comment! then if they do not approve, it goes to the 'Comment Forum' for approval by the community.

ie. the Feedback only goes immediately live if the recipient clicks the thumbs up box.

the only issue I see here is how long does the feedback wait for approval before it is posted? lets say you give me negative feedback because I broke our alliance and then suicide on you. after which I call you a &)&*$#&(%)#. wow. can we say issues?? anyway you leave me negative comments and they can't go live until I approve them I'm going to sit on em so they never reach the light of day!

[jiminski]

How about this? everyone gets a chance to leave Feedback, with first refusal by the recipient of the comment! then if they do not approve, it goes to the 'Comment Forum' for approval by the community.

ie. the Feedback only goes immediately live if the recipient clicks the thumbs up box.

the only issue I see here is how long does the feedback wait for approval before it is posted? lets say you give me negative feedback because I broke our alliance and then suicide on you. after which I call you a &)&*$#&(%)#. wow. can we say issues?? anyway you leave me negative comments and they can't go live until I approve them I'm going to sit on em so they never reach the light of day!

It's a very good point!

Ok so let's say at each log-in, each member sees an automatically generated feedback approval box with all pending feedback. you have 5 days, for example, to vote 'no' or it goes live as a default.

[hulmey]

How about this? everyone gets a chance to leave Feedback, with first refusal by the recipient of the comment! then if they do not approve, it goes to the 'Comment Forum' for approval by the community.

ie. the Feedback only goes immediately live if the recipient clicks the thumbs up box.

the only issue I see here is how long does the feedback wait for approval before it is posted? lets say you give me negative feedback because I broke our alliance and then suicide on you. after which I call you a &)&*$#&(%)#. wow. can we say issues?? anyway you leave me negative comments and they can't go live until I approve them I'm going to sit on em so they never reach the light of day!

It's a very good point!

Ok so let's say at each log-in, each member sees an automatically generated feedback approval box with all pending feedback. you have 5 days, for example, to vote 'no' or it goes live as a default.

hmm , that would also take care of the relatiory feedback issue as well

[suggs]

haven't read this properly, but on the face of it it sounds good.

[zimmah]

here's another idea that encompass the best of both worlds. lets say that any comments under 3 stars (average) automatically gets submitted for review as per the urban dictionary method and anything over gets immediately posted. this would remove the bulk of the mod load as the good feedback doesn't need to be scrutinized and this would also help curb retaliatory/inappropriate feedback because everybody would know that it was going to be reviewed before it was posted.
sure some asshat could post 4-5 stars and leave a load of crap, but people would be less likely to care because it doesn't negatively affect their ratings.

and i don't think someone would hand out a 5 if they want to write a shitload of crap anyways, i guess

[jiminski]

here's another idea that encompass the best of both worlds. lets say that any comments under 3 stars (average) automatically gets submitted for review as per the urban dictionary method and anything over gets immediately posted. this would remove the bulk of the mod load as the good feedback doesn't need to be scrutinized and this would also help curb retaliatory/inappropriate feedback because everybody would know that it was going to be reviewed before it was posted.
sure some asshat could post 4-5 stars and leave a load of crap, but people would be less likely to care because it doesn't negatively affect their ratings.

and i don't think someone would hand out a 5 if they want to write a shitload of crap anyways, i guess

we moved on from there Zimm

[KLOBBER]

Lousy, lousy idea.

[jiminski]

Lousy, lousy idea.

and i had such high hopes for your input

[hulmey]

this doesnt seem to be getting the coverage it deserves, maybe make another thread in general with a poll?!?!

[jiminski]

this doesnt seem to be getting the coverage it deserves, maybe make another thread in general with a poll?!?!

i've been sprinkling the link around General, but yes i agree with you Hulmey, i'll do it a little later and we'll see where we can get to!

[jiminski]

I think we should try to find a way to bring Comments back into the Feedback system but to run alongside the new Star rating!
Although the new rating system looks great, is easy to use and frees the Mods up for less miserable tasks than holding our hands when we are at our least classy...... the New system does not quite satisfy me.

Some of the dissenters; a surly bunch of whiners, drawn together in a pool of tears and ire, have moved past that (almost) and come up with a working progress of an idea:
Community Adjudicated Comment System
- Please visit, vote and add your comments to make it better-

I will not go into too much detail (hah!) as you can click on the link for that... and i will lose many to fatal boredom...

-Shut off here and visit the thread in Suggestions if you wish but the below 'summarises' our progress-

However, We know the problems with the old comment system:
- It takes up the mods resources and is a thankless, subjective task.
- retaliation and never ending cycle of tit for tat bickering which spills into all areas.

...to name but 2.

the new system has resolved this .. but in doing so it has thrown its hand in the air and shied completely away from any contention at all. I understand why but so much of the information and creativity which we want in the system has gone!

The proposal gives ability, to all users, to add a comment at the end of a game.
They have 24 hours to make comment on any game/player (with game-link if it regards a specific game)
This can be anything:
- Skill and tactics
- It could be a friendly piece of prose for mutual enjoyment!


The Comment is then made available to the recipient for approval prior to it being logged into their profile. They have 5 days to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If they fail to vote the comment will be entered into their profile.
In special cases, live Comments can be taken back to the Forum for adjudication; to cover people going away and missing the right to veto.

If they say ‘yes’, they have approved the comment and it will also be logged into their profile.

If they say ‘no’, not approved, the Comment goes for arbitration by the Site in the Contentious Comment Forum. (The rules of approval need to be worked out but will mainly cover outright spiteful lies and abusive language!)

Arbitration is made by CC members: the make-up and remit of which is to be discussed;
It could be
A) Open to all members, with a pre-forum link to the Moderation 'Forum', on the Front page after login. This will encourage those who do not normally visit the Forums to participate! *
or
B) Closed select group of non-mod volunteers



Why will this work where the other failed?

- The proposed system does not affect your Pos or Neg Rating, so it will be less contentious.
- The recipient gets immediate right to take contentious Comments to the Community for adjudication of fairness and suitability, before anyone else sees it in their Profile.
- If the Comments are judged by the whole site (with say 100 votes giving a judgement on 95% agreement**) on a casual anonymous basis, there is no one to shout at, no focal figure to hate.


Anyway.. why say 2 words when you can say 1000 .. this is a working progress but i think we are getting somewhere.

Stop whining and contribute... well whine and contribute if you like!



*This is participatory Forum but with anonymous perusal and voting only. The comment Forum is 'ironically' not a place for discussion by the voters.
So there will be no canvassing for support or bitching, it is simply a place to read and click 'yes' or 'no'.

**A ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision! For example, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.

[jiminski]

OK on Hulmey's prodding i have made a General Discussion thread to get some more exposure:

General Discussion Vote


Please come; vote and add your 2 peniths worth!

[hulmey]

im a strong believer in this system you are advocating. I do believe it shouldnt be moderated by a closed group though. It should be moderated by all as you have defined.

The advantages are obvious and it also brings the community closer together. I hope Twill comments on this coz i think it would be a great step forward for CC kind.

[jiminski]

im a strong believer in this system you are advocating. I do believe it shouldnt be moderated by a closed group though. It should be moderated by all as you have defined.

The advantages are obvious and it also brings the community closer together. I hope Twill comments on this coz i think it would be a great step forward for CC kind.

Cheers Hulmey! *places arm around Hulmeys shoulder, breathes an intoxicating mix of whiskey vapour and pickled eggs in his compadres face* Me and you against the world pal!

[firstholliday]

If lack is smart he will ask jim to be a moderator.
Last couple of months he is 1 of few that comes up with great ideas.

[Fruitcake]

Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.

I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.

[jiminski]

Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.

I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.

thanks and Agreed Fruitcake!.. but what we propose .. (there is a lot of info there, so understand the detail can be missed) is that there be a ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision!

Say it is open to the whole site, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.