Chat moderation discussion

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 15:09

@Iszi oh. Yeah, we use this same system internally. We did try Slack for about a month, and mostly hated it.

IIRC, the designers still use it, because they're designers.

diagprov

@Iszi I was being nosey mostly :)

Mark Buffalo

@RoraΖ true

Iszi

@MarkBuffalo Umm. Wow. My initial assumption was "twisted April Fools joke". But that's like a week early. For that matter, being that it's three years ago I'd expect we could find a fair amount of detail about it online by now.

SmokeDispenser

@Shog9 haha.

Iszi

Blah. I should have known to check Snopes first. snopes.com/media/notnews/magicjohnson.asp

diagprov

Apr 7, 2016 15:20

@Shog9 hipchat isn't much better either tbh.

Iszi

Love this: troyhunt.com/2016/03/the-world-needs-more-stupid-security.html

Shog9

@diagprov yeah... Different design goals, really.

SO/SE chat was pretty much, "how can we make a web-based IRC-like system that's usable by folks on our sites and scales with them".

So you get things like a robust transcript, and replies that actually... Link back to the message they're replying to. So folks don't have to camp in chat 24/7 to be a part of it.

You have moderation that's a bit more nuanced than "ban".

(cue complaints about how it's not nuanced enough...)

In short, it's geared toward serving an auxiliary social role for Q&A. NOT at replacing a hodgepodge of IM and hallway conversations in your average dysfunctional workgroup.

Folks who like Slack tend to really like IM. Mostly-immediate, mostly-private interactions.

SmokeDispenser

Oh, I do happen to see that only now: @Shog9, are you wearing an blue diamond cap in you profile picture?

Shog9

yes

SmokeDispenser

thats feels like at least a tad too much;)

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 15:30

Hey, some folks like to dress up as their favorite cartoon characters. I like to dress up as a moderator. Don't judge.

M'vy

Slack seems to go more in the side of "all-in-one" communication tool for your team

diagprov

@Shog9 yeah, it does that v well (I was user Ninefingers in an old life and remember pre-chat SE).

Iszi

@Shog9 Let's see you dressed up as @RoryAlsop. Not the "day job" @RoryAlsop though. Talking the "nights & weekends" form.

Shog9

@diagprov Oh, I remember you then. You wrote/inspired a bunch of helpful "how to moderate" meta posts.

diagprov

@Shog9 yeah but we complain about everything :) bring back flag weight!

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 15:32

ugh

diagprov

sorry ;)

@Shog9 I did. Dunno if it's still there, but yes I did.

Mark Buffalo

@Iszi Yeah, obviously fake, but so twisted it just gave me a pause

Shog9

Ironically, flag weight might actually work now, at least in some limited areas. The problem at the time was that you essentially had a tiny handful of people controlling it, so instead of ever thinking, "I should change how I flag", folks just blamed the mods for their stupidity.

M'vy

@diagprov oooh I kinda forgot that name Ninefingers .

Shog9

...But, a count does the same thing with much less complexity.

Iszi

Apr 7, 2016 15:35

@Shog9 On that subject, I've been meaning to do a Meta.SE Q but haven't gotten around to searching for duplicates. Wonder if you happen to know whether this has been covered already. feature-request Only allow validation of flags by users currently in-room. (Not saying they need to be in the room when the flag was raised, but they at least need to come to it - upon which they'll theoretically take some time to gather context - before confirming the flag.)

Shog9

145

Q: Add escalation system to chat flags

The offensive/spam flags in chat are shown to every moderator from a parent site (on chat.stackexchange.com that is every SE 2.0 moderator, more than 200 right now) and 10k chat users as well. This is potentially far more users than a flag on an SE site itself is shown to. I don't think it is n...

See also linked sidebar

diagprov

@Shog9 and also took the internet points part of flag weight too seriously. After all nobody else could see it and unless you got to 0% it didn't really change much.

Mark Buffalo

@kalina I can totally understand how you were offended by that... I didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to help diffuse the situation and help him understand that we get you, and we like you... I should've chosen my words better.

Iszi

@Shog9 Yeah, I remember some discussion about an escalation process. Wasn't sure if it was quite distinct enough or not.

Shog9

@Iszi In particular,

16

A: Flags in chat are defective by design

I've been thinking about this issue for several weeks now, and I recently got my hands on 120 days worth of actual chat flag data. The data covered all cases where at least two people found a message flag-worthy (including the original flagger) and at least one person thought the flag was not val...

tl;dr: folks in the room already have a pretty good jump on flags if they're active. Restricting outsiders would mostly just slow things down and potentially allow cliques to shield behavior that's actually harmful from oversight.

SmokeDispenser

Apr 7, 2016 15:38

Thank you for your help, I think I have enough to go on now — George Windonski 2 mins ago

Shog9

Going back to that "let's make an IRC suitable for Q&A" design philosophy, this is one of those behaviors chat was actively designed to frustrate.

SmokeDispenser

sigh

diagprov

@Shog9 The cliques thing could be a problem, I get that. It might help though to have some way not to broadcast to all 10k+ and mods, though. You'll probably know better than me but I believe the original idea was that chat was small, so sending flags to all 10ks make sense as what you needed most was a fast resolution to the issue.

Iszi

@Shog9 The only change I'm suggesting at this point - different from other threads I've been in, if not all other requests - is that a person actually needs to be in the room the flag was raised in before they can respond to it. Notifications would still go out to 10k-ers and mods across the network as they do now, and anyone from those groups could still perform the same actions on the flag regardless of where they happened to be (or not be) at the time of the flag.

They'd just need to get into the room the flag's in first.

diagprov

What tends to happen with the current system is that everyone rubber necks on the drama and weights in, which probably doesn't help.

Still, I don't have a concrete suggestion as to how to fix this, maybe what @Iszi is saying might work.

Iszi

Apr 7, 2016 15:44

@diagprov Depending on the flagger/flagee involved, the "weighing in" very well may help. And if it wouldn't, it's likely that nothing else would have anyway. The "weighing in" process that many participate in - if done properly - is really just to make sure that all due consideration was taken into account before the flag was raised (and especially before it's acted on - though, usually, after "weighing in" is done, outsiders have already knocked it of, as it should be already but often isn't.

RoraΖ

So currently mods who are in other rooms can take action on a flag in a completely separate room?

M'vy

@RoraΖ I can currently validate flags from other rooms. And I'm no mod.

RoraΖ

Right mods and 10kers

M'vy

I guess it's not automatic and needs co-validations to truly get appied

RoraΖ

Can you ban people from other rooms?

Iszi

Apr 7, 2016 15:46

@RoraΖ Not directly through flag responses.

M'vy

If flag is valid you get a 30 min suspension

RoraΖ

And if it's a mod then it's instant?

Iszi

The flag response is a simple "valid/not valid" vote.

M'vy

and "not sure"

Iszi

And the system has processes and algorithms in place for weighing and handling the response. Flags that reach the confirmation threshold result in post deletion, at least. I'm not sure if it's an immediate 30 minute suspension at the same time or not - that might require a certain rate of confirmed flags against the same user.

Xander

Apr 7, 2016 15:47

@RoraΖ Yes. Mod validations are binding.

Iszi

@M'vy Yeah, I couldn't remember the verbiage for that. And, for the purpose of the current discussion, didn't really think it mattered.

Ohnana

what do you think about giving someone a change to self-censor before the validation process?

Xander

@RoraΖ We get a little warning that reminds us of that fact.

Ohnana

aka "hey you got flagged, do you want to remove it?"

Iszi

@Ohnana Arguably, that would just give them a chance to hide it.

diagprov

Apr 7, 2016 15:49

@Iszi I can't help but feel sometimes it is too many cooks

Iszi

i.e.: Maybe it was something that really warrants very harsh action, and the room needs someone outside (due to inactivity of local mods or whatever) to come take care of the (ab)user.

diagprov

but I can't see flags any more so :)

Ohnana

@Iszi yes, but it's removed and gone. this solves the problem

you could also have self-deletions notify a local mod or room-owner

Iszi

@diagprov Well, hopefully at least they're reasonable and responsible cooks. That's what the limitation to 10k and mods is supposed to produce.

Ohnana

so if it's a "whoops too far" they can be like "yo, don't do that"

and if it's a "WHOA TOO FAR" they can pull the user aside

Iszi

Apr 7, 2016 15:51

@Ohnana The purpose of a flag, when properly used, is to alert outside mods/room owners because the locals aren't available and immediate action is needed.

diagprov

@Iszi Yeah but there's so many mods and 10ks now. If you think 3 pro-tem mods per site, x hundred sites now. I know they're not all online at the same time but still.

RoraΖ

@Xander That makes sense. Someone jokingly flagged one of my messages. And a mod from a completely different room 30m banned me before coming into the DMZ.

Iszi

@RoraΖ You mean they came in after they validated the flag? Dicks.

RoraΖ

@Iszi yep

Xander

@RoraΖ Yeah, I don't ever validate flag (unless it's explicitly clear in the text as to why it was flagged) without visiting the room first to get a handle on the context.

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 15:53

a system for escalation is nice for gently reminding folks to think a bit about what they're typing, but tedious in the case of someone who is actively trying to rile folks up / just doesn't care.

Ohnana

@Iszi however reality does not follow

RoraΖ

@RoryAlsop was nice enough to figure out how to fix it

Shog9

The kick-mute feature was designed with the former in mind, flags are helpful for the latter. Perhaps adding a "kick" option to the flag UI would allow for more nuance here...

Iszi

@Shog9 This is a bit different from escalation though. Like I said, the same people will still be just as capable of acting on the flag as they are now. They would just have one more step, which will hopefully bring along an appropriate amount of due consideration, before they do.

Xander

@Shog9 Yeah, I'd like the ability to (optionally) validate and flag and delete the message without kick-banning.

Mark Buffalo

Apr 7, 2016 15:55

@Ohnana I do this all the time

and I ask if the room is offended before validating the flag

Ohnana

or have a strikes policy: first time you get booted for a short time, second you get booted for longer, third is, well, you cannot into chat

Shog9

@Ohnana that's what I mean by "escalation"

that's how kicks work, but not how flags work

Iszi

@Shog9 I wouldn't go with adding. Maybe change the verbiage in the current UI to "kick/don't kick/abstain" or something similar, but without changing the functionality.

Shog9

'cause if you got someone who decides to (for example) spam every room they can find with a link to their project, or thinks posting racist cartoons is the best way to fight the great culture war or whatever... A one-minute timeout just lets them queue up more.

Might be useful to just have more types of flags too, I suppose

Iszi

@Shog9 Works for Q/A. But of course that's a horse of a different color.

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 15:59

o Annoying others
o Rude
o Spam or blatantly offensive

Iszi

@Shog9 First one could use a bit of re-phrasing. Not even sure it's worth being distinct, but I think I get where you're at with that.

Shog9

-> censor
-> kick
-> ban

AviD

@Shog9 I would move the "or blatantly offensive" to "Rude"

doesnt really fit with spam

Iszi

@AviD I think it does, in terms of what the appropriate response would be.

Annoying/Rude, you might get by with just censorship. Spam/blatantly offensive needs a kick.

Shog9

Alternately, could make the system try & suss out the severity based on # of messages flagged + # of rooms involved

M'vy

Apr 7, 2016 16:02

Why not a step system. First flag -> warning, Second flag -> 5 min timeout, third flag -> 1 day suspension

Iszi

@Shog9 Is there really a problem of individual users simultaneously (or nearly so) posting flag-worthy content in more than one room?

Shog9

@Iszi yes

Iszi

@Shog9 I mean, I know it's certainly a possibility. Just never actually seen it be an issue in action.

M'vy

usually that kind of behaviour is easy to spot I guess

Without even validating the flags

(unless it's not the same user)

Iszi

@Shog9 Is there any granularity to kicks/bans in chat? i.e.: Can a person be kicked/banned from just one room, or is it a network-wide hammer?

diagprov

Apr 7, 2016 16:04

@Iszi ban is network wide hammer, kick is per room.

Iszi

@diagprov Okay, I think you & I are using slightly different definitions. I presume your usage is "ban" = mod action, "kick" = RO action? (Not sure where a non-mod/RO flag response would fit though.)

Shog9

@Iszi might be less common on chat.SE than chat.SO, but still not unheard of

@Iszi click on someone's name here, select the "kick-mute" option

diagprov

@Iszi If I remember rightly, mods can kick as well. In that case it affects only this room.

Iszi

@Shog9 Damn. @Simon isn't around. Probably the first time ever I've actually wished he was here when he wasn't.

diagprov

If you go to their profile and ban from chat, they're chat-wide banned.

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 16:06

...or, I could demo it that way too

We really need to do some sort of room-owner orientation so folks realize they have these tools.

diagprov

@Shog9 I take it you kicked him?

Shog9

yeah; just 1 minute for the first kick.

47

A: A guide to moderating chat

What tools are available to room owners? Room owners are users that have some elevated permissions in a chatroom. Typically, they will be the first line of defense when it comes to inappropriate content or behavior in a room. Users will look to the room owners to guide the room. The room owners...

@Iszi, when you get back, read this:

Iszi

Geez. Had to squeeze that edit into 10 seconds thanks to the kick/mute. :-P

@Shog9 Also, did test another room. Yeah, I was able to post there. It was even another Sec.SE-associated room.

@Shog9 Yeah, I think you've literally got some form of orientation for every privileged function/position in SE except for that.

Shog9

@Iszi yeah - kick-mute is pretty benign, although it does escalate: if you get kicked thrice, a mod flag will be raised and there's a good chance you'll end up getting suspended too.

3

Iszi

@Shog9 @RоryMcCune/@ScottPack - In case you didn't get an orientation either.

diagprov

Apr 7, 2016 16:11

@Shog9 aahhh so there is good graduation there

that's good

Also the tools look fancier than I remember :)

Shog9

yeah; 1 minute, 5, 30, wrath of the mods

Iszi

@Shog9 Sorry for the constant double-pings. Can't seem to get half my messages right the first time today.

diagprov

@Shog9 perhaps normal users should be able to "vote to kick" then. As of right now our only option is to flag or try to draw the attention of a RO or mod.

Perhaps with sufficient rep ofc

Iszi

@Shog9 More properly: 1 minute, 5 minutes, 30 minutes + wrath of mods

Shog9

@diagprov yeah, I'm kinda mulling that over. I like the behavior of "kick" a lot for stuff that's... Disruptive or annoying but is somewhere short of "horrifying".

@Iszi right

The big difference between flags in chat and flags on main is the speed at which stuff can happen. You get someone upset, throwing their toys around so to speak... It can really derail a room fast.

That automatic suspension that comes with a validated flag is really nice for stopping a lot of that.

Iszi

Apr 7, 2016 16:16

@Shog9 I think the difference between kick and ban is whether or not the user is reformable.

AviD

whaaat

why did @Iszi just get kicked??

diagprov

@Shog9 I think way back when I also might have muted the idea that if enough users have a single user on ignore, this should do something also. If one user is ignoring someone, sure, just a disagreement between them. If 10 are, well, that user is probably causing a lot of trouble.

AviD

wait what

diagprov

@AviD shog9 was demoing room owner powers

Iszi

@AviD Feature demonstration.

AviD

Apr 7, 2016 16:16

ah. very well, carry on then .

Shog9

@AviD @Simon wasn't here.

Rory Alsop

Hahahahahaha

AviD

@Shog9 lol nice

Iszi

@Shog9 LOL You know the room so well.

Shog9

@diagprov yeah, I tend to agree with that.

There is actually a moderator report for "most ignores"

diagprov

Apr 7, 2016 16:18

@Shog9 wow the tools have gotten better.

Shog9

Gonna wager the top-10 there wouldn't really surprise anyone

#1, of course:

chat.stackexchange.com/users/-2/stackexchange

AviD

@Shog9 oh? where is that?

Iszi

@Shog9 lawl

Shog9

aw, no onebox? Way to spoil my reveal, chat.

@AviD mod -> user reports -> ignores

diagprov

@AviD you mean you haven't poked around to see what all the buttons do?

AviD

Apr 7, 2016 16:20

@Shog9 ah, not per-room though.

Ohnana

@Iszi you can aboose me

Shog9

no, global

AviD

@diagprov I thought he meant in a specific room.

Iszi

@Shog9 How long does the kick/mute count take to reset?

diagprov

@AviD aaaahhhh. Well still, controversial users tend to be controversial everywhere.

Iszi

Apr 7, 2016 16:21

@Ohnana ORLY? For some reason, I'd always assumed you were more of a top.

Shog9

@Iszi 24-hour rolling window

Ohnana

@Iszi quiet you

Mark Buffalo

Hmm. Apparently some "anonymous" group tried to hack Israel, and got hacked back in return, and they're doing dumps on them soon

AviD

every time

Shog9

@AviD so I'm trying to think how you'd even do this for a single room... Users can belong to multiple rooms and ignore is global

AviD

Apr 7, 2016 16:27

since anyone that wants to can be in anonymous, around half of Anonymous decides to hack Israel every few months. The other half of Anonymous decides to hack back.

@Shog9 hey I never said I thought it through

also didnt realize ignore is global, but yeah that makes sense

Mark Buffalo

Anonymous isn't a group. It's essentially, you can call yourself anonymous if you want... anyone can do it

A random person could walk into a store and steal something with a guy fawkes mask and claim to be anonymous

Often times, when the NSA dumps something to the public, they'll claim to be from anonymous.

Iszi

@Shog9 Based on the settings of the users who are currently in the room. Or have visited the room within X days.

user11842

@MarkBuffalo How does this benefit them

Mark Buffalo

Benefit who? Anyone can claim to be anonymous.

Iszi

@Shog9 It doesn't really cover all cases of "user was ignored due to their actions in this room", but it does give you an idea of the current preferences of the room's denizens.

user11842

Apr 7, 2016 16:33

How does it benefit the NSA to leak stuff this way

Mark Buffalo

@TechnikEmpire I'm uh... just tinfoiling?

user11842

@MarkBuffalo oh ok cool cool lol

Iszi

@Shog9 BTW: Thanks for linking me to that room owner privileges discussion. Hadn't noticed yet that we can actually move inappropriate messages. How is that really different from a mod delete though?

Shog9

@Iszi ok, let's try that. I'll look for everyone who has posted anything in this room over the past 30 days and is currently being ignored by someone else who said something in this room during the same time period.

...5 people qualify

Iszi

@Shog9 For the latter group, should it really be limited to posted or expanded to visited?

@Shog9 How many are ignored by more than one person?

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 16:35

All of them

Iszi

ORLY?

Shog9

I'm not counting people who are only ignored by one person

Iszi

Ah. What's the highest count of "users ignoring this person" in that survey, if I might ask?

Shog9

6

Iszi

Dayum.

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 16:37

If I include people who are only ignored by one person, the count is 13

Ohnana

i think i know who the victim is

Iszi

Is that excluding the SE bot?

Shog9

but that's kinda boring, since I suspect there's a lot of tit-for-tat

@Iszi only one of you is ignoring her

Mark Buffalo

@Shog9 Henry WH Hacker?

Iszi

@Shog9 Wait, when did it get a gender?

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 16:38

@MarkBuffalo yeah, so... There are apparently some sockpuppets I should look into here

Mark Buffalo

Oh really? Interesting.

Am I one of them? ;)

And of them end in .fbi.gov, .ucia.gov, insa.gov? :P

Iszi

@Shog9 I hope you know to leave the bears alone. You don't want that wrath.

Ohnana

@Iszi KLEO is moonlighting

Mark Buffalo

Please tell me @BarryCarlyon isn't a sock puppet of any kind. I will cry for 2 hours of a broken heart if he is.

Shog9

ah, already deleted, just an orphaned chat account with a ton of people ignoring it.

Mark Buffalo

Apr 7, 2016 16:41

lol

Shog9

@Iszi mod delete makes them invisible to most everyone; move just gets them out of the way.

Mark Buffalo

I think I'm only ignoring one person/bot. Henry

Iszi

@Shog9 Ah, normal users can still dumpster-dive then?

Shog9

right

but, in terms of getting a room back on track after someone vomits all over it... It's a pretty solid technique.

Iszi

Within the room though, it appears deleted?

Or just migrated like some other migrations happen?

Shog9

Apr 7, 2016 16:45

@Iszi that - it's actually cleaner than normal deletion.

Of course, you can also use it as it was intended, to break off a conversation into a separate room. Which is useful on occasion too.

Especially as the room grows, as the number of active users with eclectic interests expands, it's often helpful to take a conversation into a different area so as to avoid distracting everyone.

For instance, I gotta figure most of you are bored with this navel-gazing by now...

The DMZ

Participants