With the dawning of a new month, AN is unveiling a new way of maintaining the basic Community Guidelines for hanging out in “Blez’ living room”. Hopefully, the changes will be for the better in many ways – and not for the worse in any way. To help make it as clear as possible, I have broken the explanation down into three parts: A Basic Explanation, “What Is Changing,” and “What Isn’t Changing”. Lettuce know what you think…
A Basic Explanation
AN 3.0 has a feature whereby any user can “flag” any comment, categorizing it either as “spam,” “troll,” or “inappropriate,” and writing a short explanatory note to go with the flag. Flagged comments, and their accompanying notes, can only been seen by AN’s “moderators”. Starting today, “flagging” comments will become the official way of reporting suspected Community Guidelines Violations (CGVs).
The regular front-page writers (baseballgirl, Blez, louismg, monkeyball, Nico, notsellingjeans, TajAdib), and two members of the old “Sub-Committee” (gigglingone, McFood), will keep an eye out for CGVs, flagging them for fellow moderators to evaluate. Meanwhile, any user can also flag a comment for the moderators to see and evaluate.
If a moderator flags a comment and two other moderators agree that it is a CGV, a “strike” will be given and the user sent a private email informing them of the “strike”. If a non-moderator flags a comment and two moderators agree that it is a CGV, a “strike” will be given.
What Is Changing
* To complain about a comment you feel violates the CGs, instead of writing to “cgv@athleticsnation.com” you will flag the comment, mark it as “inappropriate,” and write any accompanying notes about why. (The moderators will take it from there.)
* Instead of a complaint needing three yes votes out of four Sub-committee members, now it will need three yes votes out of a possible nine moderators (only some of whom will see a given complaint in time to evaluate it).
* While the moderators still will not “look for” CGVs, they will be asked to flag any they see, so it will be a slightly more proactive process than before. (This will almost surely cause a spike in “strikes” in the near future.)
* The identities of the “group of trusted users” who are evaluating complaints is now public.
What Is Not Changing
* The Community Guidelines themselves are not currently changing in any way.
* The system of “warning strikes” and “full strikes” will stay in place (see the CGs for amplification).
* Information about whether or not a CGV was issued will remain strictly between the moderators and the complainee, i.e., if you flag a comment you will not be informed as to the outcome.
* It will still be “3 strikes, yer out!” and a given “strike” will still roll off after four months without a CGV.
* All users, including moderators, will be equally accountable to the CGs and accompanying sanctions. Moderators will be instructed to put any personal feelings aside when judging a comment against the stated CGs, and will be asked to recuse themselves if they feel they may be biased in any way.
As of midnight this morning, the slate has been wiped clean and everyone gets to have zero “strikes” – even an idiot like you! OK, almost everyone. :-(
0 recs | 84 comments
Very nice, Nico
now ladies and gents, if you have a cell phone, and you live in california, don’t forget to charge your bluetooth headset!
BigTuna - July 1, 2008
this is needed
I am glad this is happening otherwise this site might get out of control or something thank you for the positive change!
beatNYY - July 1, 2008
I feel like such a loser. I've never had a CGV.
ohtobe21likehuston - July 1, 2008
You can't really get one for just general suckiness.
Jennifer - July 1, 2008
Communities come together to help one another
That’s why I’m devoting July to baiting ohtobe21likehuston mercilessly until he cracks and earns the coveted CGV. You’re not even good enough to be called a putz, ohtobe – you’re a Batista!
Nico - July 1, 2008
Awesome!
I’ll resume hanging out in game threads just to do that…
Poppy - July 1, 2008
Thank goodness.
Come back!
pam5981 - July 1, 2008
I'm usually working during games that I'm not attending... :(
Poppy - July 1, 2008
Calling oneself a loser an insult in violation of the CVGs . Flag it!!!
kaweahkaweah - July 1, 2008
Thak
Hot Cup Joe - July 1, 2008
Where'd ya learn how to type? From a Cracker Jack box?
Flashfire - July 1, 2008
Not yours - oops
Hot Cup Joe - July 1, 2008
Ahh
The crack of the bat on a well hit ball…
oaklandSMASH - July 1, 2008
Read the Patriot Act
Anything said in a mock trial or daytime courtroom show can be used in any real criminal proceeding or prime-time procedural show, subject to the interpretation of the presiding judge or the executive producer.
gdub171 - July 1, 2008
I didn't read the Patriot Act,
but I don’t think it rewards “small ball” enough.
Nico - July 1, 2008
It's too focused on stolen bases
nevermoor - July 1, 2008
and tucking
theblackpearl - July 1, 2008
Judge Reinhold?
Keze - July 1, 2008
Baseball should always be fun and communal
I found this extremely interesting, for there have been a few times when I was sure I crossed over the guidelines and I felt really bad about it.
Baseball is a game. It is entertainment. I love to win but it is not cool at all to let it spill over into negativity, it’s baseball. Humans are fragile, be always in chill. At least I am, man. I’m working on it.
Other topics have been flirted with, which I truly try to avoid. This is not the place, and I still feel bad about the time I freaked out about picture of Chelsea Clinton. I don’t even like the Clintons that much, but that’s just the place my minds comes from with something like that.
So I really don’t like it when I lose sight of this. As far as I know, I haven’t been contacted for offensive or inappropriate comments. I swear like a sailor, but that seems to be an accepted community norm.
I may get huffy people don’t like my stupid pitch-by-pitch dialogues, but I hope I’m forgiven for it, I really don’t care. I’m kind of an excitable person, it wiggles out in various forms.
Please have a great day, everyone.
paradox - July 1, 2008
Post flagged.
:O
I’m just seeing how it works!
mikev - July 1, 2008
The game threads, circa August 2008
The Dogfather - July 1, 2008
Looks like my brain after an earthquake
Nico - July 1, 2008
Full of dry cracks?
Hell, we’re full of those right now!
Jennifer - July 1, 2008
The crack I get is always too dry
Please help.
Nico - July 1, 2008
Late August on the playa ?
Yup, that sounds like a game thread.
green star oakland - July 1, 2008
Hmm - does not seem to be working
I brought up the flag dialog, but the only option that seems to be available is ‘spam’
Oddly, the dropdown menu did not drop down. (Firefox 2.0 on Max)
MobiusKlein - July 1, 2008
That would not be good -
though if need be you could still flag CGVs and just put “CGV, not spam” as part of your note. We’ll know what you mean. Or we’ll just ban both of you.
Nico - July 1, 2008
The dropdown works for me (Firefox 2.0 on PC)
So it must be a mac thing
nevermoor - July 1, 2008
Just reporting the bug, sir.
Probably some stupid javascript thing.
MobiusKlein - July 1, 2008
the maths confused me, 3 or 2?
I’d have quite a batting average if my three posts a year got me banned, but I’d still like clarification….
Eric in Atlanta - July 1, 2008
i guess the number stays the same
its just the source of the flagging on the first quote, and the number of possible voters in the 2nd quote (from 4 voters to 9 possible)
BigTuna - July 1, 2008
Correct - in other words,
non-moderators have just as much “voting power” as moderators, in that they can issue the first of three “yes” votes and only two more “yes” votes (by moderators) are needed.
And on the second point, the “pool” of people assessing complaints has grown from four to “up to 9”.
Nico - July 1, 2008
unfortunately, I'm now wading in that "pool" ...
... and I think we all know what that means …
monkeyball - July 1, 2008
ADD CHLORINE!!!!
Nico - July 1, 2008
I'm holding off on posting an appropriate image
nevermoor - July 1, 2008
shrinkage?
5Aces - July 1, 2008
I thought that's what Miggy did before signing with the A's
monkeyball - July 1, 2008
Are you saying that
the “inappropriate” flag is now synonymous with CGV?
There are often posts which I feel are inappropriate but not a CGV. I used to flag those. Now I don’t know what to do.
iglew - July 1, 2008
Well, you could always reply
(politely that is)
MobiusKlein - July 1, 2008
sometimes a public reply is counterproductive
iglew - July 1, 2008
Screw you for saying that, iglew!
See?
Nico - July 1, 2008
I know - it's currently synonymous
Ideally, there should either be an extra choice for “CGV,” or “inappropriate” should be removed and replaced with “CGV,” but we’re not there yet.
My advice, though, would be to ignore comments you feel are “inappropriate but not CGVs” and to flag CGVs. That would put your flagging in concert with the moderators’ standards for taking action. (Notice how I worked in the word “concert”?)
Nico - July 1, 2008
I'm not understanding the distinction
If a post is “inappropriate” (for whatever reason in your or anyone’s estimation) then how is it not a CGV?
monkeyball - July 1, 2008
I'm not really sure either -
the “inappropriate” label came with AN 3.0 and was probably chosen to mean “anything worth flagging that isn’t a spammer or a troll”. But that may as well be labeled “CGV” – hopefully, in the future the choices will be “spam,” “troll,” or “CGV,” but I know that tech-related changes don’t happen instantly so for now I’d just consider “inappropriate” and “CGV” to be synonymous.
Nico - July 1, 2008
OK, let me clarify here
Trolling IS a CGV, n’est ce pas?
PaulThomas - July 1, 2008
No, because it's instantly bannable,
not subject to the “strike one…two…” system that applies to legitimate users. For example, several users flagged a comment on yesterday’s recap but the user was just banned outright because he/she/it was clearly a troll.
Nico - July 1, 2008
OK, fair
PaulThomas - July 1, 2008
ditto spammers and propagaters of *really* inappropriate material
monkeyball - July 1, 2008
While I'm not sure I'd want to be a lower order quadruped on this site, given the lustatory and gustatory proclivities of "the nine,"
... the multiple chances, the goals of the process (being unrelated to maxing out its bannination stats) and the fact that this is, after all, a small, privately-owned bundle of energy in a very large intertubes, means I’m comfortable with the old and new systems. After all, the writings of “the nine” suggest some pretty wide limits on acceptability.
Aren’t we worrying about how many Angels can pop-out off the end of a bat?
The Dogfather - July 1, 2008
The Dogfather - July 1, 2008
Obviously, describing trysts with sheep
in great detail is fine, but suggesting that Emil Brown should start against RHP is a “strike”. Seems fair to me.
Nico - July 1, 2008
Is that singular "sheep" or plural "sheep?" Or a particular term of endearment?
The Dogfather - July 1, 2008
Ewe figure it out
Nico - July 1, 2008
I guess my issue is
I think there’s such a thing as a violation that’s worth noting but not worth giving someone a citation over. Like if someone says, “that’s as stupid as George Bush’s tax plan”, then I’d like to point out that such a reference really isn’t appropriate, but I also don’t think it’s so bad that the offender should be one-third of the way toward being thrown off the site. That’s the sort of thing I had in mind when I’d flag for inappropriate.
But maybe I’m fooling myself and those flags go unnoticed and accomplish absolutely nothing if they aren’t a CGV report anyway.
I would support Nico’s suggestion of an extra choice in the drop-down list. Until then I’ll take his advice and refrain from flagging anything unless I feel it’s a reportable offense.
iglew - July 1, 2008
I think that's why warning strikes can be issued.
I’m sure Nico can clarify if I’m wrong.
jeepers - July 1, 2008
That's exactly right - the "warning strike"
is so AN can tell a user “this did cross the line” without always having to issue a full strike for something that may barely cross the line. However, the warning still has some oomph because if you get back-to-back “warnings” it upgrades to a full strike.
Nico - July 1, 2008
Because you're mine
I walk the line…
oaklandSMASH - July 1, 2008
Do not like
From 3/4ths of a duly convened body to 3/9ths of the people who might possibly see a possibly offending comment? Ugh. I suspect this will tend to put the CGV power in the hands of those deputized moderators who choose to be most strident in what they see as their vigilence responsibilities. Which will tend to reinforce itself…if three folks who take the hardest line approaches act in concert, well, then that becomes the de facto standard whether the other 6 moderators agree or not.
Also: over the last year there have been some assurances (albeit vague and never written into the procedure) that users charged with a CGV could have some chance to pleads their case, or appeal, or submit a statement for Committee consideration, or something. Is that now totally out the window? It is notable for its absence from your description above.
Here’s the problem: AN laudably aspires to have an open standard of behavior, and even-handed enforcement thereof. But the process falls short of that goal, moreso per the above than ever before, IMHO. When you offer due process and fail to deliver it is worse than never offering due process in the first place. Really, the more typical “ban at will” blogmaster standard is far more wieldy, and doesn’t give people the false sense of control.
FreeSeatUpgrade - July 1, 2008
Nah - 3/9 is only very theoretical
louismg is busy caring for new-born twins, Blez oversees a trillion blogs, and the rest of us do this in our spare time while maintaining “real jobs”. I’m just hoping that each flag is seen and assessed by as many as 4 moderators, so it is reviewed by as many people as before. And since it won’t be the same 4 people every time, the sampling is only more varied and less subject to the “control of 3 people” phenomenon you fear.
If anyone ever promised an appeals system for users charged with a CGV, that eluded me (and I’m the main point-person on the CGV system). All I ever recall being said is that if you’re issued a “strike” and are moved to reply with a “hey, but…” to consider, we’re open-minded. I remember a couple times users have emailed me in response to a “strike” and I’ve passed the email onto the sub-committee members with a “what do you guys think?” and I know that in at least one case the sub-committee decided to change its ruling.
Anyway, what it really comes down to is that the system, however designed, will never work well if its judges are corrupted by power, swayed by emotion or personal bias, or just plain dumb – and will work great overall if its judges are dedicated to just trying to be as fair and accurate as possible with their rulings. And with this group of moderators, I feel AN is in very good hands.
Nico - July 1, 2008
I accept PayPal
First person to pay off my degenerate gambling debt to mikeA gets a year of me turning a blind eye.
monkeyball - July 1, 2008
Assurances of the chance to be heard
By Nico, 2/8/08.
(emphasis added)As I characterized it above, assurances, albeit vague and informal. If that’s true, you should write it into the policy (and make your email address easier to find, since one can only get there by way of Cellular Banana). If that’s not true, it shouldn’t be offered, informally or otherwise. Same standard for all users, whether pushy or savvy enough to figure out a way to argue the case or not.
Again, this is only relevant insofar as AN chooses to make this a public process. You’ll get no argument from me if you went with the iron-fisted rule of the Party Premier.
FreeSeatUpgrade - July 1, 2008
The "perhaps this could be..." sentence you emphasize
doesn’t seem to me to be any sort of promise or assurance, just an acknowledgement that the idea could be considered, but doesn’t really need to be – because ( as the the paragraph overall explains) if someone feels a ruling is unfair, and they protest, the protest will actually be read and considered by the judges. It’s not as if a user would ever protest and be told, “Sorry, we already ruled.”
As for my email address, if you receive a “strike” all you have to do is push the “reply” button to email me back. If that’s too much trouble, well…maybe “strikes” aren’t your biggest problem!
Nico - July 1, 2008
"It has always been the case informally"
is a lot different than “the idea doesn’t really need to be considered.” And until the February dialogue I linked, I believe that in fact the AN party line was that once a CGV ruling was issued the case was closed.
Informal understandings which can be picked and chosen, and are known only to veteran savvy users, don’t make a system more fair. They make it less so. Better not to have a system at all than to create false expectations. But enough about my love life.
FreeSeatUpgrade - July 1, 2008
But it isn't a "system" to be responsive to feedback
There is no appeals process. However, if someone feels something is unjust and says so, we’ll go, “Oh, let’s look at what you’re saying…” rather than “Too late!”
Similarly, there is no system for users to change the “registration waiting period” by submitting a certain number of names on a petition. But if someone says, “You know, the waiting period was good because it deterred trolls,” the powers-that-be might think, “Yeah, that’s a good point” and change it. Listening to people when they weigh in is not a system or an appeals process.
Nico - July 1, 2008
You know, the waiting period was good because it deterred trolls.
Poppy - July 1, 2008
I know - what's up with losing that?
I chose that example because it’s actually one of the changes I don’t like with AN 3.0.
Nico - July 1, 2008
A counterbalance for 3/9
Can the three votes be cancelled out if three people vote against?
jeepers - July 1, 2008
Not really, because if a moderator looks at a flagged comment
and doesn’t agree that it’s a CGV, the procedure is just to ignore it (rather than “flagging it” with a “no strike” comment) – we could change that down the line, but that’s how we’re doing it initially to make it as easy as possible for the moderators to participate. Moderators certainly CAN flag and say, “Well I don’t think it’s a CGV” – and maybe they will, in which case that feedback will be seen by the others – but they’re not required to.
Nico - July 1, 2008
Was I just called a vigilante?
And if I’m deputized, do I get a badge? Because I want a badge. And a water pistol.
gigglingone - July 1, 2008
But you can't ask Kobe how your ass tastes, or you get your badge taken away.
theblackpearl - July 1, 2008
Poppy - July 1, 2008
Badges? BADGES???
You don’t need no stinkin’ badges!
Badgers, on the other hand – well, let’s just say I have a few to spare if you’re interested.
Nico - July 1, 2008
Would you settle for an adorable animated identity?
The Beijing Internet Police
Englishmajor - July 1, 2008
sweet
I like that much better than the animated identity that I stumbled upon thanks to google a few months back…..it’s amazing what you find when you google yourself….
gigglingone - July 1, 2008
Paul Thomas
this means you! arrghghghghghghghg
SwampyD - July 1, 2008
testing, 1, 2, 3 ...
monkeyball - July 1, 2008
I wish I knew about this slate-cleaning thing yesterday
ArakSOT - July 1, 2008
Well, as I commented to you on here yesterday,
“That’s too bad, you pathetic, whiny, Angel-loving, douchebag of a moron who wouldn’t know a good idea if it left Blanton in too long!”
Nico - July 1, 2008
Flagged
For using leaving Blanton in as an example instead of DFA-ing Brown. For shame.
nevermoor - July 1, 2008
timeframe
shouldn’t there a timeframe within which the three votes must occur? otherwise, this explanation that some of the 9 voters won’t see a given post doesn’t make much sense…
ohmangoAs - July 1, 2008
Yes, a "statute of limitations" would make sense
for that (because users should get somewhat prompt feedback if there’s a problem) as well as for flagging a comment in the first place. Trouble is, at the moment we don’t yet know what is a reasonable amount of time that the moderators will need to stay current on the flagged comments. So while I’d like to say “48 hours” in a perfect world, I can’t even say less than “a week” until we see the system in action.
Nico - July 1, 2008
If this is Blez' living room
do I get flagged for ruining his coffee table?
I forget to use a coaster sometimes.
oaklandSMASH - July 1, 2008
Yes.
And by the way, you misspelled “flogged”.
Nico - July 1, 2008
Who knew he had such a kinky living room?
oaklandSMASH - July 1, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.