Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

On User Juries...

Page: (1)2 3

12:33 / 16.10.03

So here's a concept that I'd very much like to consider introducing to the board - as soon as I've managed to persuade Cal that it's a good idea. It's called User Juries.

Basically it works like this - every day, a random assortment of non-moderators who have posted in the previous 24 hours are selected and made into 'Jurors'. Jurors get to see - and vote yay or nay - on moderation actions with exactly the same weight as moderators do. That way, members of the board would have more awareness of the kinds of decisions that people were putting through and more ability to influence those decisions.

Alongside this would come increased anonymity for the moderators however. An action on a post that you wrote yourself would simply say, "Self-edit", but otherwise yuo'd have no idea who suggested an action. That way the social aspects of who you trust / don't trust wouldn't be so evident, and moderators could still decide to suggest actions that might be considered unpopular...

13:56 / 16.10.03

YES!

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:58 / 16.10.03

Cool!

Tryphena Absent

14:08 / 16.10.03

Controversial! I like it!

Tryphena Absent

14:09 / 16.10.03

I think.

14:12 / 16.10.03

Sounds good to me.

14:29 / 16.10.03

I love it. Barbelith's getting more like daytime TV every day. Which isn't a bad thing.

Matthew Fluxington

15:01 / 16.10.03

I don't know. It sounds like this would be a real nuisance for people who don't really want to be part of the moderation process and just want to read the board here and there as a distraction during the day.

Matthew Fluxington

15:03 / 16.10.03

And what happens when one or more of the people selected have posted in that 24 hour period, but then don't have computer access when they're on jury duty?

Tryphena Absent

15:14 / 16.10.03

They're screwed? They can opt out? They're consulted before they become moderators? (Giant badgers ride them? Duh! Shut up blowhard! You're such an old man! God! If I was God I'd strike you down with lightning and thunder and a big lance.)

15:20 / 16.10.03

Sounds like a nice idea Tom. If it turns out to be inpractical then that will soon be apparent - and the necessary tweaking can be made!

Matthew Fluxington

16:32 / 16.10.03

I don't know. It just seems like way more beaurocracy and hassle and confusion than is necessary to edit what is mostly just a bunch of spelling errors and broken links.

In terms of Barbelith, I'm a total political conservative, aren't I?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:36 / 16.10.03

That is generally what happens to revolutionaries when you give them something practical to do. Sad, isn't it?

Matthew Fluxington

16:50 / 16.10.03

So forcing moderation duties on people who didn't ask for the responsibility and probably don't give a fuck about how the moderation functions is "revolutionary?"

I think most people would just qualify that as annoying and unwelcome.

And for what, to prove a really simple point to a handful of paranoid numbskulls?

How about we instead just give the crybabies the vote, and leave the indifferent majority alone?

17:14 / 16.10.03

As long as the "normal" moderators are still in place, I don't think that it would constitute much of a burden, given that one can simply ingore that little box at the top of the screen. It doesn't force anything, as there's no consequence to disregarding it. Unless I've misunderstood something, which is always a distinct possibility.

The Apple-Picker

17:34 / 16.10.03

Flux, you blowhard, why don't you try toning it down? No need to call people cry babies.

Although... I must say that I don't really see the benefit to this jury thing, either. Not that I post anything her other than fluff anymore anyway. Mostly, I read.

Maybe it's just because I do trust the moderators that I have no interest in being on any jury. I imagine their days are filled with boring actions like tidying thread subject headings and clarifying abstracts. It's a thankless job. Well, moderators, I thank you.

This jury thing seems really inefficient.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

18:30 / 16.10.03

So forcing moderation duties on people who didn't ask for the responsibility and probably don't give a fuck about how the moderation functions is "revolutionary?"

Actually, I was talking about you being a political conservative. Or were you always this much of an armchair Generalissimo?

How about we instead just give the crybabies the vote, and leave the indifferent majority alone?

You have to be kidding. Please God say this is some involved piece of irony I haven't got because I'm not paying attention.

18:42 / 16.10.03

Okay, what about if the members of the user jury were given an opt-out if they wanted it? Once they're chosen (I take it this'd be entirely controlled by the board in some way), on their next visit to the board they're redirected to a page that lets them decide if they want to be part of it or not. If they choose not to be then the board doesn't present them with any moderation requests. Maybe it could keep track of those who've declined in the past, so that they're not put through the same process in future.

A system along those lines would mean that after a while, Tom could decide whether it'd be worth continuing with (checking the percentage of people opting out). Nobody's forced to do anything - they're not faced with moderation actions if they don't want to be and they don't have to actively seek out the opt-out.

Tom - on the anonymity thing. Are you talking about just protecting the identity of the moderator requesting the action from the jury, or from everyone, including other moderators?

Matthew Fluxington

19:03 / 16.10.03

If it is implemented the way that Randy suggests, this could work. But that oot-out option really needs to be there. Otherwise, it's asking too much of a lot of people who might not really care one way or another.

19:29 / 16.10.03

Is there something that checks if you're ignoring the pending moderation tasks link, and send someone over to your place to slap the hell out of you? Am I just not seeing it because it is an IE only feature? I ask because I could really use something like that at my job. I'd be more than happy to pay for a license on that baby.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:43 / 16.10.03

Seems good to me... no mod function is compulsory (and yes, many's the time I've mulled over whether to agree or disagree someone else's request and have found the matter's been taken out of my hands...) An "opt-out" function might be nice unless this is explained to those involved, however...

As Anna de L says, if impractical it is, then impractical it shall be found to be, and thence whatever!

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:46 / 16.10.03

How about this: If you're selected for jury duty, you see a little message at the top of your screen, where the "pending moderation task" link appears. The message says something like "Hello, you've been selected for jury duty." Underneath there's a brief explanation of what it is you're being asked to do, along with two buttons saying "Accept" or "Opt Out." All you have to do is click one button or the other. It's hardly a massive imposition.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

20:07 / 16.10.03

That seems FAR too reasonable to work. But it might just!!!

21:59 / 16.10.03

I think it's a good idea. It might lead to people trying to avoid jury duty. Like real life. But if that's a problem, things can always be changed again.

One of the great things about using homegrown software for the Lith is that things can be changed around on a fundamental level, and I reckon we should exploit that as much as possible for this kind of experiment.

22:39 / 16.10.03

I like this idea of selection a(by) lot.

22:55 / 16.10.03

Sounds like a good plan and also I shouldn't think it's been tried before, or at least not on a good quality board. So any result will be interesting. As has been said before, the opt-out function is pretty important. This post is just to say remember to put a checkbox in the profile page so people can opt back in again if they feel like it.
cheers
l

01:12 / 17.10.03

First things first, "So forcing moderation duties on people who didn't ask for the responsibility and probably don't give a fuck about how the moderation functions is "revolutionary?" I think most people would just qualify that as annoying and unwelcome. And for what, to prove a really simple point to a handful of paranoid numbskulls? How about we instead just give the crybabies the vote, and leave the indifferent majority alone?"

That's probably the most unhelpful thing anyone has ever said on this board. In that it's also overtly stating that we should be comfortable with the idea that people are completely apathetic to the way the community operates and should have absolutely no stake in its maintenance, or power to affect any kind of change or to enforce their will - I think it's also genuinely offensive to me.

The whole point of the Barbelith moderation system is that it's got enough redundancy in it so that a mod can be away from the board for three days - or even several weeks - without the place grinding to a halt. No one has to vote on the moderation actions if they're awarded Jury status - any more than moderators have to vote on the current decisions that are up for grabs. But if they wanted to, they could legitimately scupper actions they didn't think should happen as well as have a better understanding of the kind of things that are happening around the board.

Now those seem to me to be noble goals. If the approach is wrong, that's one thing, but can you really explain to me why the goals are wrong? The whole point of the damn thing is that it's NON-INTRUSIVE, TOTALLY VOLUNTARY (in terms of how much you're prepared to help) and vaguely illuminating. I'm suggesting this as an alternative to having collated piles of moderation actions around the place (which frankly I don't think would work particularly well) and I'm trying to find a way to make sure that the relationship between moderators and non-moderators can remain as relatively harmonious as possible.

04:28 / 17.10.03

How many people will need to vote on each action? I can see a certain someone posting with two suits, finding out they have both been selected for mod duty, and running rampant all over the board. Is there any way to prevent that from happening?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

05:18 / 17.10.03

I just can't see this working if you (or Cal) try to automate the process as much as possible, now admittedly, that may be just because I wouldn't understand how that would work. To me it seems you would have to choose on Monday who you want to be on the jury, spend the week checking with them by PM that that's okay, and then flick a switch Friday night and say, let them moderate until Sunday night, Monday morning. Then start again with other users. I certainly think this should be how you run it the first few times so that you can actually find out what sort of success rate this has, but it does require you to walk out amongst your people, a bit like Commander Data playing Henry V.

As I understand it Juries won't have powers to generate new moderation requests, so we don't need to worry too much if Knodge's next suit becomes a Jurist, the worst that could happen is he turns down a few reasonable requests.

06:40 / 17.10.03

I like the idea. It seems to me to be similar to the system they have on Slashdot. If they can do it, I'm damn sure that we can do it better!

07:26 / 17.10.03

We already do it better.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:02 / 17.10.03

I suppose you would be able to exclude people from the Jury system if you felt they were unreliable, or they could opt out.

Another thing which occurs to me is that you could gradually develop a picture of how moderators operate - though you might not want to. The figures would tell you if someone's actions were vastly more frequently rejected than other mods or posters, and even whether particular types of action were more frequently approved by permananet mods than by jury members. All kinds of things could theoretically emerge, though there would be innaccuracies resulting from posting patterns and so on...

Sorry. Latent statistician emerging. He's gone now.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:10 / 17.10.03

[note: I can't spell 'inaccuracy', which strikes me as ironic, and I do realise that jury-members cannot, on the proposed model, initiate actions. I just got carried away.]

09:42 / 17.10.03

You can't spell "permanent" either.

Surely if the whole system is automated, it would run very smoothly? If the software can randomly select, say, 12 people who have posted in the past 24 hours to become reactive moderators I'd say you would get a good proportion who would actually respond to moderator requests.

Even unreliable wankers could do nothing more harmful than hit "disagree" or ignore the request completely, and there should be enough even-minded people and existing mods to give balance.

09:43 / 17.10.03

(And I love the verbal pun in "user jury").

Page: (1)2 3