Automated Abuse Handling System

I've been thinking about this for about 60 min as I do my ResMod duty. What is needed is an interface for tracking and handling reported posts, threads and users. It would drasticly increase productivity and reduce confusion amongst the mods.

Reviewer = Number of reviewers.
On one page would be incoming abuse reports, formated into a table.
Icons would indicate

1. linden moderated
   
2. locked thread
   

Rating would be determined in the review of the post.

|----------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Reveiwer | AR Title                     | Unique post AR's              |
|  Icons   | Thread Title                 | Total UPAR's in thread        |
|  Rating  | Post Author - Points         | (post number/posts in thread) |
|          | Thread Author  - Points      |                               |
|----------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|

They could be sorted by most recent AR, most recently reviewed or most AR's.
They could be dispayed in thread or post mode (would group AR's for a thread together and sort them by post number).
The display could be limited to only display AR's with a given age and posts with a given age.

In the review page there would be a number of radio controls for rating the post.
These controls would asign points to the user. Points would be asigned on a post basis, even if a post were reviewed several times, it would only asign points once.

Points would them be tallied up daily, weekly and monthly. If the number of collected points were too high the account would be flagged for possible disiplinary action.

Something like:
Two Days: 200 points
Weekly: 500 points
Monthly 1500 points

Review Page:

.----------.------------------------------.-------------------------------. 
| Reveiwer | AR Title                     | Unique post AR's              | 
|  Icons   | Thread Title                 | Total UPAR's in thread        | 
|  Rating  | Post Author - Points         | (post number/posts in thread) | 
|          | Thread Author  - Points      |                               | 
|----------'------------------------------'-------------------------------| 
|  .-------------------------------------------------------------------.  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |                           AR 1 Text                               |  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |-------------------------------------------------------------------|  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |                           AR 2 Text                               |  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |-------------------------------------------------------------------|  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |                           AR 3 Text                               |  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |-------------------------------------------------------------------|  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  |                           AR 4 Text                               |  | 
|  |                                                                   |  |
|  '-------------------------------------------------------------------'  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| 
|                                                                         | 
|                                                                         | 
|                                Post Text                                | 
|                                                                         | 
|                                                                         | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| 
|                                                                         | 
|  .------------.----------.-------------------------------------------.  | 
|  | Reviewer 1 |  Points  |                  Comment                  |  | 
|  |            |  Rating  |                                           |  | 
|  |------------+----------+-------------------------------------------|  | 
|  | Reviewer 2 |  Points  |                  Comment                  |  | 
|  |            |  Rating  |                                           |  | 
|  |------------+----------+-------------------------------------------|  | 
|  | Reviewer 3 |  Points  |                  Comment                  |  | 
|  |            |  Rating  |                                           |  | 
|  |------------+----------+-------------------------------------------|  | 
|  | Reviewer 4 |  Points  |                  Comment                  |  | 
|  |            |  Rating  |                                           |  | 
|  '------------'----------'-------------------------------------------'  | 
|                                                                         | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| 
|  .---------------------------------------.                              | 
|  | Type: (*) Abuse  ( ) FYI   ( ) Other  |                              | 
|  '---------------------------------------'                              | 
|                                                                         | 
|  .-----------.-------.-------.-------.-------.-------.-------.          | 
|  | Type      |   NA  |  Tiny | Small | Medium| Large | Jumbo |          | 
|  |-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|          | 
|  |  Rating   |       |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  |-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|          | 
|  |  __CS__   |       |       |       |       |       |       |          | 
|  | Attack    |  (*)  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  |   Insult  |  (*)  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  | Trolling  |  (*)  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  | Language  |  (*)  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  |           |       |       |       |       |       |       |          | 
|  |-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------|          | 
|  |  __TOS__  |       |       |       |       |       |       |          | 
|  | Info Leak |  (*)  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  | Encurage  |  (*)  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |  ( )  |          | 
|  |           |       |       |       |       |       |       |          | 
|  '-----------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'          | 
|                                                                         | 
|  Needs Linden Review [ ]                                                | 
|  Asign points? [x]                                                      | 
|                                                                         | 
|  Attach Comment:                                                        | 
|  .----------------------------------------------------------------.     | 
|  |                                                                |     | 
|  |                                                                |     | 
|  |                                                                |     | 
|  |                                                                |     | 
|  |                                                                |     | 
|  |                                                                |     | 
|  '----------------------------------------------------------------'     | 
|                                                                         | 
|  [Submit] - [Preview] - [Cancle]                                        | 
|                                                                         | 
'-------------------------------------------------------------------------' 

Whoa. Now there's a plan in glorious ASCII diagrams!

So Strife... how would this be programmed to integrate with our vBulletin?

I wanna know more.

Me too! Let's talk about it here -- not just how do we become more efficient, but what are the Res Mods, along with the rest of the forum community, thinking about the posting guidelines now that you've had some time to try to enforce them?

I don't really understand it all, but it looks to me like Strife is trying to come up with a way to quantify the process, and it looks like a good thing to me. But though it looks very useful, I don't think that it really addresses the core of the problem.

They are not enforcing the guidelines. They are applying the guidelines more strictly to some people, and not at all to others. However, this also happened routinely before there were resmods.

I will put here what I wrote in the resmod forum, and also offer two more thoughts:

-----

Torley, I should think every resmod would have read and studied the TOS.

Thus, if the resmods receive AR's about a post, they would be able to read the post AR'd and determine for themselves whether or not they think it breaks the TOS, rather than basing their decisions on any of the following considerations:

1. how many people have AR'd the post

2. how lawyer-like those people have been in explaining to the resmods why the post breaks the TOS

3. who reports the post (i.e., whether or not they are just a "certain few" to be ignored)

4. whether or not the post bothers the resmod personally

5. and/or the subjectively perceived "intent" of the poster, rather than the words actually used.

ALL those have been cited by the resmods as reasons for not acting on an AR, and none should be entering the equation at all.

------

And my two thoughts:

1. The TOS is a joke, and the modding of the forums a travesty. Some people get away with everything, while (less popular?) people get warned for nothing. That is a verifiable fact.

Worst of all is the rule that ties this forum "discipline" to one's abiiity to play SL and to retain one's possessions therein.

2. The injustice in the forums is why I stopped recommending that friends play SL, and ONLY reason why I tell friends that SL is not really a good place to be in. Because of the forums, you have lost me as a recruiter.

coco

Sorry coco,

It's not a fact, it's your opinion. You are allowed to express it.

It is a fact when I can point to one post for which the poster got a suspension and another post in which the poster did the same thing, and more, and didn't even get a warning, or edited.

It is also a fact that I can point to numerous examples of the same thing.

Those things are sitting there, factually. If you don't "see" them, then that is your perogative. If you haven't read them, then you haven't seen them. But I am not talking opinions here; I am talking fact. Which is why I said it was a fact.

coco

If this requires anyone write even a line of code, I'd have to say a big fat no.

The company has vastly more important projects to get out the door before they begin work on a mechanism for satisfying the forum busy bodies.

Those are not facts, they are interpretations. To suggest that the TOS only favors certain people, is ludicrous.

I might add here Cocoa that I agree with Weedy. You have absolutely no way to back up that statement. I could 'tell' you I never get warnings etc and be lying my ass off. Your reciprocal accusations of this nature are becoming tiresome.

No, the TOS doesn't favor only certain people.

It is that the moderators aren't apply the TOS as it is written, as equally to everyone as possible.

They don't even come CLOSE to applying them equally, and never have.

In fact, they apply them so unequally and unfairly on occasion that it makes a total mockery of the whole system to anyone who ever read and believed the TOS in the first place.

coco

Nobody is holding you down and forcing you to post here. You have three choices here.

Post and expect rebuttal, read only or don't read at all.

The "lost as a recruiter" is tyranny. It's a threat to make others accept your points. It's extortion of opinion.

When Siggy is getting a free pass, it's a travesty. When Cat Cotton got free passes, on numerous occasions, it wasn't an issue at all.

In fact, it was justified as being because Cat was "pushed to the breaking point".

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I was getting formal warnings for quoting things W-hats were saying.

I asked questions and wrote emails too, about both my frivolously given warnings and Cat's seeming abilty to cuss people out on the forums with nary an edit. I got no answers either.

It has nothing to do with popularity in my mind, and everything to do with a system with many shortcomings. Some just don't want to believe that though.

Says you. Now cite examples please.

I have absolutely dozens of ways to back up that statement.

I don't like to single out individuals, or to repeat things that were bad in the first place, but here is the latest (and by far not the only) example.

The post in question:

"Well one business douchebag always see thing with one eye that look good for her."

Here are the ways this post violates the TOS and guidelines (boldings mine):

1. Sexual harrassment, as in sexually coarse and aggressive language:

Harassment
Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.

2. Indecency:

Indecency
Second Life is an adult community, but Mature material is not necessarily appropriate in all areas (see Global Standards below). Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M). Names of Residents, objects, places and groups are broadly viewable in Second Life directories and on the Second Life website, and must adhere to PG guidelines.

3. Intolerance:

Intolerance
Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.

4. Personal attack:

Discipline
Be respectful. Please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults because you will risk having your Second Life account suspended or banned.

That post was AR'd. That post was not removed, and was not edited. All the resmods we have, all the Lindens we have, yet nothing happened to that post.

Yet another resident who spoke in pidgeon English like that (before the resmod system) received a suspension.

You asked for an example. There is one example. One indisputable fact. Even if it were the only example, it would be sufficient to show that one cannot expect the TOS to be upheld in any sort of consistant manner. Such examples, by the way, go back to before the resmods ever came on the job. And they don't all involve the author of the post above.

coco

Because a post was AR'd does not automatically mean it will be removed. The term may not be a nice description of a person, but it does not suggest banning someone. Much like the term asshat etc. It does not rise to the level of warning.

And with regard to pidgeon English, I don't know the exact example you are referring to, but if the poster was warned, I would think it was because broadly offensive, or intolerant.

I've just ran your sytem through a simulator and the results show that I'll be banned within just two days of the system being introduced. So bring it on!!

I will just add automated abusers to counter your feeble little system. <evil laugh>


Seriously though. I've always found it puzzling that a software driven environment needs humans to monitor the users. Hey, The Matrix had the sentinels!

I think I'd rather be banned by a machine. I wouldn't take it as personal. If I was banned by Char Linden then I'd be crushed. Oh but my crush wouldn't be crushed!!! Never!! Oh how I long to run my fingers through her blonde polygonous locks.


Okay, okay. I'm getting creepy now. I'll shutup.

While at the same time, Weedy, other posters get official warnings for something far less aggressive, no worse than what had been just said to them, and without using any sexually or ethnically offensive language.

And this sort of thing happens a LOT here.

Obviously, it's all out of whack. It doesn't take a "net nanny" or "forum busybody" to become incensed over it. The same thing would happen irl if some people got to break the law with impunity, while others were jailed for jaywalking. Not to mention different punishments (or no punishment) for the exact same transgressions.

coco

If because the forums you have stopped recruiting, then why is your forum post count higher than most players? If you tell people SL is not a good place to be, why do you play?
I usually try to avoid posts and rants as much as I can, but this just didn't make much sense to me =/

edit to add: assuming you are the same person as the other coco?

Once again, this is only your opinion....not a fact.

It comes down to personal responsibility. Examine your own post count, for example....if you claim the forums are a cesspool of bad behavior, then you might do well to consider the ratio of your involvement as well.

the trick being that assigning "points" to social behaviors is a really tricky business. psychologists have been trying for 100 years in small simple experiments and they still often get it wrong.

1) as far as social interactions go there are at least three kinds of "points"
- those that will be forgotten eventually
- those that can be erased by a different social interactions, and
- those that are never forgotten.

2) a system that doesn't take into account positive actions is overly punitive.

3) using a rules based system over a chaotic system often yields nonsense results. situations will arise that aren't covered by the rules.

4) judging the "points" value of an interaction is very subjective... the use of interjudge measures might work for a very short while, if the moderators didn't interact with the residents. however, long enough expose to be selected as a judge, or judging from a naive position long enough, will make a judge biased.

5) something this simple has the danger of being too simple-minded to deal with real people. this kind of model contains a very simple model of human behavior. and it might even be the case that behavior here is simple. but i don't see any empirical support to say it's correct. that is to say the implied model of human behavior strikes me as wrong. and if that's wrong... then the result is most likely to be wrong. again academic behaviorists of many stripes have been trying to work even simply behaviors out for 100 year and they are more often wrong than right. (at this point i expect people to cite economists... most of that is explanations of what is happening... which slightly different than predicting what people will do... and that's still all very different determining what should be done to people based on their interactions)

i'm generally against automating the evaluation of subjective interactions, not because i don't think it's possible but because it's very very easy to get wrong, but once in place very very tempting to keep using.

i think the fact that people aren't allowed to talk about any disciplinary action will greatly inhibit this conversation...

hello hello?

you called for a talk...

you going to say anything?

Why is this feature suggestion in the General forum?

Moving to Feature Suggestions

Yeah, me too. Especially considering that the reason given that they prohibited replies to the classified forums to prevent bumping was because if they installed the custom code needed to make vBulletin not bump threads, it would void the "support warranty" on the forum software license. There was much banter and one of the Lindens said they were not allowed to write custom code for the forums.

I asked if that was true, how did they go about modifying vBulletin to use our SL names in the way that they do?

This is too much work for something as trivial as the forums. No programmer should ever be put on it, and if they ever are, it will just continue to expose Linden Labs as the liars they are.