[please delete] FEEDBACK COMMENT - Community moderation

[PLAYER57832]

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!' !

I really think folks are far, far too worried about "bad" feedback for the wrong reason.

I see two situations. Everybody, unless they are EXTREMELY fortunate, runs across a plain jerk now and then ... someone who negs you because you beat them, someone who wants everyone else to play their way (not a team game, mind you) ... ETC. Under the old system you could have these comments removed.

BUT, the real truth is that most of those comments actually spoke more of the person LEAVING them than the person receiving them.

If you ask for moderation of ANY kind, you are just asking for trouble. Yes, I know that you placed restrictions, but about the ONLY time I think feedback should be moderated is if someone issues a real and serious threat ... I doubt it ever would happen, but if so, sure. .. delete and permanently oust the guilty. Even harsh language ... I don't like it, but if I see a bunch of it, I know to put that person on my ignore list.

So, I like your suggestion (though I think a keeping track of the actual issues is better .. : )...), but would prefer NO MODERATION. Someone makes a comment -- let it ride. Maybe the comments could be left "standing" for a longer period of time, so that someone can change their negative opinion later, but I say leave the comments.

[jiminski]

you need to read on a little further in the thread Player (just a few posts on) .. i think we cracked it between us.. have a look and let me know what you think. I also updated the front page to include our 'findings'

[jiminski]

Here it is Player,

Lack will never allow un-moderated feedback.

I think the below idea quite nicely resolves the problem of spiteful and inappropriate feedback, by sending it for moderation prior to it being entered into a profile!
Whilst also giving friends the opportunity to keep more subjective personalised comments.

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

[jiminski]

Well so far so proper.

Sounds very good to me, and with fear of being accused of politicking myself, I would suggest strongly that the community vote hard for this. It resolves so many issues.

yeah im in love with the idea and it really does resolve all the problems we are curently experiencing. anyways , im feeling dizzy and im gonig to lie down, im also smelling pickled onions

I reckon it does resolve all the problems too mate and at no inconvenience to site nor player.
those who want to participate, both in judging and in commenting can do so with all the necessary checks and balances, so no one is offended without recourse.

[AndyDufresne]

When we were in the initial stages of planning for the next feedback system, we did consider the idea of having "community moderation." But I believe we steered away for it for the time being because we weren't sure if "enough of the community would actually do it." Who comes here to play games, and who comes here to moderate feedback?


--Andy

[owenshooter]

When we were in the initial stages of planning for the next feedback system, we did consider the idea of having "community moderation." But I believe we steered away for it for the time being because we weren't sure if "enough of the community would actually do it." Who comes here to play games, and who comes here to moderate feedback?


--Andy

totally agree with the banana muncher. how many people are in the forums? i mean, how many users? and, let's say i play superrag in a doubles, and he screws me over with rating or feedback or whatever you want to call it, and i want community moderation. now, he is a spanish player, living in barcelona. sooo, does he have his "hearing" here in OUR gd OR does he have it in the spanish language forum? do you see all the problems that ONE ISSUE already brings up? how many separate language forums are there on CC, and how would we come to a "community" decision? 100 votes hardly seems like a majority or enough to make a sound decision, based on the number of members, etc, involved in CC. it is a great idea, but kind of short sighted as it doesn't really take into account "THE COMMUNITY". it takes into account all the nerds, like myself, that chat it up in the forums and visit on a regular basis to one small corner of this site.-0

[PLAYER57832]

First, I want to congratulate you on the time and effort and thought you have put into this.

However, I still disagree.

The thing is, you are still leaving the judication up to someone other than the one leaving the feedback.

I see two primary times when someone objects to feedback.

1. The odd comment from the "jerk" or "jokester". These are the main ones I would call "legitimate removals" under the old system.

2. Someone who keeps getting "bad" or "incorrect" comments. But, guess what? a lot of those objecting to feedback objected because they refused to consider that there might have been a legitimate reason for the comment In other words, they were the jerks!, but "naturally", saw fit to blame everybody else for what was really their problem.

Read the old feedback and it becomes reasonably clear which is which.

If someone had even 30-40 positives and one negative ... usually the negative might say "person deadbeat" and the response would be "sorry, computer failed".
I would say "no biggie", though a few might disagree.

OR, it might say something like "complete #@$ suicided on me, I would have won if it weren't for $#%%". The response might be "?????" And, guess what? The real jerk was almost certainly the one leaving the comment. If you really are not sure, you look at the # of negs ... chances are that person has quite a few. If not, go into that person's feedback (the one leaving the neg, that is) and you see a few negs, but lots of nuetrals. More importantly, these are not "oops my computer died", but "this guy threw a tantrum, deadbeat, but I could see other games were active" Or "insulting and rude in chat ... avoid".


BUT, here is the REAL problem. Chances are that jerk had at least some of the feedback deleted for being "non specific" or "not proveable" or ????? I can definitely understand. The mods are people. No one wants to have to put up with a bunch of complaints.

under your system, it would be impossible to be consistant. It is hard enough to be consistant when you are just one person judging (anything) never mind a shiftable group (and it would have to be a shifting group). You would get more complaints than ever. If the "jury" were known, they would get Pm's, etc. whenever someone felt "slighted". The mods would end up having to judicate .. even if it is just to say "the jury decided" ... "they jury decided" ... over and over and over again.

In reality, this would put Lack MORE at risk, more likely to get someone causing him real trouble.

The only grey areas that perhaps could use modification is for language. That would have to be a list of specific profane words. It could even be automatically programmed in that if someone prints F*** it will be replaced by ***[expletive]. This will, of course lead to certain creative avoidance ... but, at that point, who cares. Actually, creativity is fun, its hearing the same truly unexpressive vulgarity over and over and over again that gets irritating, not variations on "your mother is a donkey and your father an object that crawls on the ground".

For legal purposes, there would have to be an exception made for real and true threats. I don't believe this has ever happened, but I suppose it could. Anything else .. anything other than specific words and clear threats would be left alone.

No jury, no mod ... just left as, is. The ONE person's opinion.

Now, one change that might be appropriate is to allow the person who LEFT the comment to be able to modify it for longer than they can now. Maybe someone begins just not taking things seriously or maybe they are in a very, very, very bad mood for a while.... or just plain misunderstands the system (maybe they think they are supposed to give a negative when someone doesn't play "real time". By the time they realise "oops, I guess I goofed ... " the feedback is archived. That, I can see changing.

[KLOBBER]

Don't mind the circus maximus noob jim.

Okay, if you say so. I didn't know that he was a Circus Maximus noob, but I won't mind the Circus Maximus noob Jim.

(I didn't really mind him much to begin with; I mainly just minded his INCREDIBLY STUPID idea in this thread).

Give it up, dude. It will NEVER happen.

[jiminski]

When we were in the initial stages of planning for the next feedback system, we did consider the idea of having "community moderation." But I believe we steered away for it for the time being because we weren't sure if "enough of the community would actually do it." Who comes here to play games, and who comes here to moderate feedback?


--Andy

totally agree with the banana muncher. how many people are in the forums? i mean, how many users? and, let's say i play superrag in a doubles, and he screws me over with rating or feedback or whatever you want to call it, and i want community moderation. now, he is a spanish player, living in barcelona. sooo, does he have his "hearing" here in OUR gd OR does he have it in the spanish language forum? do you see all the problems that ONE ISSUE already brings up? how many separate language forums are there on CC, and how would we come to a "community" decision? 100 votes hardly seems like a majority or enough to make a sound decision, based on the number of members, etc, involved in CC. it is a great idea, but kind of short sighted as it doesn't really take into account "THE COMMUNITY". it takes into account all the nerds, like myself, that chat it up in the forums and visit on a regular basis to one small corner of this site.-0

agreed which is why i added:

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! *

there is a lot of detail to take in so i see why you missed it.

look guys, we can find problems if we do not want something to work!

So Andy am i to understand that we are wasting our time!?
I invested time and effort into this, not least because Lack advised me to put this in as an official suggestion!
if it was just to placate me and shut me up, then thanks a frigging lot!

I'll give up if i am wasting my time!
i do, funnily enough, have stuff like work to do and if this is not going to be considered in a serious way, i will give up straightaway, no further debate!

what do you advise ?

[PLAYER57832]

First, as to the serious consideration ... I tried to combine the ideas. The first day, there were far more votes for "keep the old system" BUT your idea was not included.

Now there are less than 10 in all, 4 for your idea..... out of several thousand players.

It seems that either people don't mind the current system
OR they don't like it, but can't be bothered to try to fix it... or they don't know that there are threads about this here within the forum.

Pick your choice, and act accordingly.


I wrote a response in your other thread. I won't go into it in detail. I will just say that I think feedback needs to be unmoderated, other than clear profanity or true threats. The feedback is one person's opinion. The problem comes when we try to make it into something "more real" ... into something "fair" and "even". It cannot be. It is opinion ... and so would any moderation be.

[jiminski]

When we were in the initial stages of planning for the next feedback system, we did consider the idea of having "community moderation." But I believe we steered away for it for the time being because we weren't sure if "enough of the community would actually do it." Who comes here to play games, and who comes here to moderate feedback?


--Andy

totally agree with the banana muncher. how many people are in the forums? i mean, how many users? and, let's say i play superrag in a doubles, and he screws me over with rating or feedback or whatever you want to call it, and i want community moderation. now, he is a spanish player, living in barcelona. sooo, does he have his "hearing" here in OUR gd OR does he have it in the spanish language forum? do you see all the problems that ONE ISSUE already brings up? how many separate language forums are there on CC, and how would we come to a "community" decision? 100 votes hardly seems like a majority or enough to make a sound decision, based on the number of members, etc, involved in CC. it is a great idea, but kind of short sighted as it doesn't really take into account "THE COMMUNITY". it takes into account all the nerds, like myself, that chat it up in the forums and visit on a regular basis to one small corner of this site.-0

agreed which is why i added:

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! *

there is a lot of detail to take in so i see why you missed it.

look guys, we can find problems if we do not want something to work!

So Andy am i to understand that we are wasting our time!?
I invested time and effort into this, not least because Lack advised me to put this in as an official suggestion!
if it was just to placate me and shut me up, then thanks a frigging lot!

I'll give up if i am wasting my time!
i do, funnily enough, have stuff like work to do and if this is not going to be considered in a serious way, i will give up straightaway, no further debate!

what do you advise ?

[jiminski]

Don't mind the circus maximus noob jim.

Okay, if you say so. I didn't know that he was a Circus Maximus noob, but I won't mind the Circus Maximus noob Jim.

(I didn't really mind him much to begin with; I mainly just minded his INCREDIBLY STUPID idea in this thread).

Give it up, dude. It will NEVER happen.

hehe no what he means is that you startup 100 x 8 man Standard Circus Max games at a time. You do so in the hope that ,them being at the front of the open games to join, only new players will join and generally deadbeat.
In this way you win points and gain your rank without actually playing any games...

at least i think you are that Klobber?

[jiminski]

..


OH THAT KLOBBER!!








...

[Esn]

First, as to the serious consideration ... I tried to combine the ideas. The first day, there were far more votes for "keep the old system" BUT your idea was not included.

Now there are less than 10 in all, 4 for your idea..... out of several thousand players.

It seems that either people don't mind the current system
OR they don't like it, but can't be bothered to try to fix it... or they don't know that there are threads about this here within the forum.

Pick your choice, and act accordingly.

I pick choice #3. If a special notice was put up about the existence of this proposal right on the "My Games" page (as it was for the announcement about the rating system), you would definitely see a lot more people here. The only reason I found this thread was because I checked the last page of that thread and somebody linked here. I haven't visited the forums too much otherwise.

Anyway, I think that this is a good idea and I would be willing to help moderate feedback. If we're going to have community feedback monitoring, though, there are going to have to be some advertising and incentives. Advertising=adding a "Judge feedback" link on the Interaction Menu, so that everybody sees it. Incentives=...well, if it works like on Digg for example, you don't necessarily need incentives. Otherwise, some special medals might help.

[foregone]

While I think this is in theory a good idea (and I put my vote to #3) all the possible ways to abuse must just be considered ahead of time...otherwise if it was implemented it could just result in a big balls up. Splendid idea though.

[hulmey]

yeah, you could get medals and stuuf like as an incentive!

[jiminski]

First, I want to congratulate you on the time and effort and thought you have put into this.

However, I still disagree.

The thing is, you are still leaving the judication up to someone other than the one leaving the feedback.

I see two primary times when someone objects to feedback.

1. The odd comment from the "jerk" or "jokester". These are the main ones I would call "legitimate removals" under the old system.

2. Someone who keeps getting "bad" or "incorrect" comments. But, guess what? a lot of those objecting to feedback objected because they refused to consider that there might have been a legitimate reason for the comment In other words, they were the jerks!, but "naturally", saw fit to blame everybody else for what was really their problem.

Read the old feedback and it becomes reasonably clear which is which.

If someone had even 30-40 positives and one negative ... usually the negative might say "person deadbeat" and the response would be "sorry, computer failed".
I would say "no biggie", though a few might disagree.

OR, it might say something like "complete #@$ suicided on me, I would have won if it weren't for $#%%". The response might be "?????" And, guess what? The real jerk was almost certainly the one leaving the comment. If you really are not sure, you look at the # of negs ... chances are that person has quite a few. If not, go into that person's feedback (the one leaving the neg, that is) and you see a few negs, but lots of nuetrals. More importantly, these are not "oops my computer died", but "this guy threw a tantrum, deadbeat, but I could see other games were active" Or "insulting and rude in chat ... avoid".


BUT, here is the REAL problem. Chances are that jerk had at least some of the feedback deleted for being "non specific" or "not proveable" or ????? I can definitely understand. The mods are people. No one wants to have to put up with a bunch of complaints.

under your system, it would be impossible to be consistant. It is hard enough to be consistant when you are just one person judging (anything) never mind a shiftable group (and it would have to be a shifting group). You would get more complaints than ever. If the "jury" were known, they would get Pm's, etc. whenever someone felt "slighted". The mods would end up having to judicate .. even if it is just to say "the jury decided" ... "they jury decided" ... over and over and over again.

In reality, this would put Lack MORE at risk, more likely to get someone causing him real trouble.

The only grey areas that perhaps could use modification is for language. That would have to be a list of specific profane words. It could even be automatically programmed in that if someone prints F*** it will be replaced by ***[expletive]. This will, of course lead to certain creative avoidance ... but, at that point, who cares. Actually, creativity is fun, its hearing the same truly unexpressive vulgarity over and over and over again that gets irritating, not variations on "your mother is a donkey and your father an object that crawls on the ground".

For legal purposes, there would have to be an exception made for real and true threats. I don't believe this has ever happened, but I suppose it could. Anything else .. anything other than specific words and clear threats would be left alone.

No jury, no mod ... just left as, is. The ONE person's opinion.

Now, one change that might be appropriate is to allow the person who LEFT the comment to be able to modify it for longer than they can now. Maybe someone begins just not taking things seriously or maybe they are in a very, very, very bad mood for a while.... or just plain misunderstands the system (maybe they think they are supposed to give a negative when someone doesn't play "real time". By the time they realise "oops, I guess I goofed ... " the feedback is archived. That, I can see changing.

i am not sure you have read the latest draft of the proposal Player, it changes quite a lot!

The forum would work to a Brief and be anonymous voting only... no comment or discussion. No abuse from the disgruntled, as they do not know who to abuse except everyone?


(honestly anyone not quite grasping it should go to the Urban Dictionary and take a look how they pass (EDIT) definitions. the link is in my first post.)

The Forum would just be a list of contended Comments with a click-box 'thumbs up' 'thumbs down' or 'flat thumb'-uncertain.

the forum would be open to the whole site, (linked on the front page to include far more people!.. like the Classic map thread) with a set quantity and percentage of approval votes to pass the comment.
The key to the door is that all feedback would go to the recipient prior to approval for approval.
Only if it is not approved will the feedback go to the forum for adjudication.

If it is regarding gameplay - then a game-link would need to be supplied.

Setting the remit of the forum is key .. but as i say it must be mainly based upon outright abuse and outrageous miss-truths regarding play.

As i say that remit would need to be formulated correctly , that is most important.

Player, you will never get a wholly unmoderated comment system (we are struggling on this one to be fair) .. so please get on board, it would be nice to have you working with us, with all of your energy.

[jiminski]

First, as to the serious consideration ... I tried to combine the ideas. The first day, there were far more votes for "keep the old system" BUT your idea was not included.

Now there are less than 10 in all, 4 for your idea..... out of several thousand players.

It seems that either people don't mind the current system
OR they don't like it, but can't be bothered to try to fix it... or they don't know that there are threads about this here within the forum.

Pick your choice, and act accordingly.


I wrote a response in your other thread. I won't go into it in detail. I will just say that I think feedback needs to be unmoderated, other than clear profanity or true threats. The feedback is one person's opinion. The problem comes when we try to make it into something "more real" ... into something "fair" and "even". It cannot be. It is opinion ... and so would any moderation be.

not everyone is always talking to you Player
'serious consideration' was directed at the site and in response to Andy's post.. not you.

but between this thread and the sister thread in Suggestions there are nearly 100 votes .. quite a lot for votes in the forums.


However i did write a response in that thread directed to you..

[jiminski]

yeah, you could get medals and stuuf like as an incentive!

good idea! Medals for Services to Community Moderation .. you don;t think it works ... people have been ranking furiously to get that medal!

[KLOBBER]

Give it up, dude. It will NEVER happen.

"...you startup 100 x 8 man Standard Circus Max games at a time...."

The programming only allows 50 games awaiting players at a time, and I only have 11 games awaiting players now.

Where do you get your misinformation?

[jiminski]

Give it up, dude. It will NEVER happen.

"...you startup 100 x 8 man Standard Circus Max games at a time...."

The programming only allows 50 games awaiting players at a time, and I only have 11 games awaiting players now.

Where do you get your misinformation?

Alright Klobby, funs over.. move long please. Unless you have something useful to say; i am sure you are smart enough to find and describe the holes in the proposal and help make it workable!? Or indeed, come up with insurmountable weaknesses in the idea which just kills it off.

Just saying it is stupid and moronic tells us nothing in particular .. except that you are a little bored perhaps?

[KLOBBER]

Give it up, dude. It will NEVER happen.

Just saying it is stupid and moronic....

I said it is an INCREDIBLY STUPID idea; I never said that it is moronic, but thank you for posting your opinion as well.

[Nephilim]

wow, i voted yes and will help with adjudication, and was astonished to see 56% so far for that option......jim, you are a bright boy!

i haven't read further than the original post so someone may have already said: another advantage to your proposal is that CC mods don't have to handle feedback anymore, which was a major sticking point for changing the system, i believe....

and i miss all my old comments, the funny ones both positive and negative......it's something we need to bring back, i don't think "the wall" really replaces it very effectively....

cheers

ps: klobber's a douche

[jiminski]

Give it up, dude. It will NEVER happen.

Just saying it is stupid and moronic....

I said it is an INCREDIBLY STUPID idea; I never said that it is moronic, but thank you for posting your opinion as well.

sheese you put the arse in Smart-arse!


Klobby, honestly, if you have 'the' reason why it will not work, other than those along the less than enlightening lines so far produced by you (as shown above) please save us all time and effort and hit us with the killer blow.

[homes32]

When we were in the initial stages of planning for the next feedback system, we did consider the idea of having "community moderation." But I believe we steered away for it for the time being because we weren't sure if "enough of the community would actually do it." Who comes here to play games, and who comes here to moderate feedback?


--Andy

thanks for the input Andy. this is exactly what has been running through my mind since jiminski and I started hashing this idea out out a few days ago. If this is to work we need to keep the community involved. medals or other rewards could be a good solution for this.

another possible solution would be to post for example 3 comments to rate on the top of the user's my games page. this would put the opportunity right out in front of the user and would solve the problem of "I'm not going out of my way to mod feedback" and would keep the mod system moving at a fast pace as the whole community would be exposed to it.

how do you guys feel about this?