Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Sep 2009 16:28 UTC, submitted by Robert Escue
Thread beginning with comment 384363
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: An idea for improving the moderation system
by Robert Escue on Wed 16th Sep 2009 16:29
in reply to "An idea for improving the moderation system"
RE: An idea for improving the moderation system
by strcpy on Wed 16th Sep 2009 16:35
in reply to "An idea for improving the moderation system"
RE[2]: An idea for improving the moderation system
by Robert Escue on Wed 16th Sep 2009 16:49
in reply to "RE: An idea for improving the moderation system"
A few years ago I used to meta-moderate for Slashdot. While I had a bullet-proof Slashdot karma, I could never use it because I was always meta-moderating (no good deed goes unpunished). I mentioned it to Cmdr Taco more than once and he laughed it off, until I logged out for the last time.
From what I saw at that time if you got modded as a troll, you pretty much deserved it. The majority of the posts I looked over were modded well. In the six or seven months I meta-moderated I only changed one post.
This place is still like the Wild Wild West!





Member since:
2005-07-08
Considering that I have had two comments modded down to -1 for nothing more than pointing out how thin skinned members of the Linux community here are, I have an idea that might limit the "mod the %^(*&% down" thing.
Before you can mod a post down, you have to submit a 1,000 word essay as to why the post should be modded down. This, of course is subject to the approval of the OSNews staff. And once the approval is granted (based on how fast the staff can read all those essays), the post is modded down.
With the lack of meta-moderation here, I am sure a number of users would like some degree of sanity checking of the use of the moderation system, particularly in the fashion it is being used with this article.