When flags & reports are processed via a queue, administrators can accept or deny them. These decisions are tracked via an algorithm that will put together trends based on users that abuse the moderation tools. Once a user starts trending due to administrators rejecting their reports, a system will track and remove moderation rights of certain users, a three strike rule will ultimately ban abusive accounts for life and can even lead to a termination. It's also good to note that members below level 15 cannot use the report function, and until you are level 10 you cannot use the moderation tools at all. I believe members with high enough profiles will not want to risk having their accounts deleted due to abuse. Either way, I wont reveal the details further as we don't want anyone to try and exploit this approach. I hope this answers your question /u/frootloops.
ok, so it's a semi automatic system, that makes more sense now. But that would mean all down votes for specifc reasons have to moderated actively, right?
Any more comments to my other questions / suggestions? If you don't want to answer them now that's ok, i am just making sure you didn't overlooked them.
1. Witchhunt example, i really don't get it?
2. Only public to OP?
3. Difference between OP and down voter protection?
\/
1. Not all profiles are anonymous, we don't force people to make anonymous profiles. Making any votes public can cause privacy problems, we don't want to encourage nor enable this sort of activity.
2. Nope, we are sticking with 100% anonymous.
3. Not sure I fully understand this question. Can you elaborate?
I think what /u/FrootLoops means to say is that while the downvoter is anonymous, the commenter isn't. The protection scale is different for one who voices his opinion through commenting, and one who voices his opinion through voting, which creates inequality.
Both options remain a choice, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Comments can be about anything and cannot be seen as irrefutable evidence of a vote and thus even if a comment is made, the vote remains anonymous.
When flags & reports are processed via a queue, administrators can accept or deny them. These decisions are tracked via an algorithm that will put together trends based on users that abuse the moderation tools. Once a user starts trending due to administrators rejecting their reports, a system will track and remove moderation rights of certain users, a three strike rule will ultimately ban abusive accounts for life and can even lead to a termination. It's also good to note that members below level 15 cannot use the report function, and until you are level 10 you cannot use the moderation tools at all. I believe members with high enough profiles will not want to risk having their accounts deleted due to abuse. Either way, I wont reveal the details further as we don't want anyone to try and exploit this approach. I hope this answers your question /u/frootloops.
ok, so it's a semi automatic system, that makes more sense now. But that would mean all down votes for specifc reasons have to moderated actively, right?
Any more comments to my other questions / suggestions? If you don't want to answer them now that's ok, i am just making sure you didn't overlooked them.
1. Witchhunt example, i really don't get it?
2. Only public to OP?
3. Difference between OP and down voter protection?
Thanks
\/
1. Not all profiles are anonymous, we don't force people to make anonymous profiles. Making any votes public can cause privacy problems, we don't want to encourage nor enable this sort of activity.
2. Nope, we are sticking with 100% anonymous.
3. Not sure I fully understand this question. Can you elaborate?
I think what /u/FrootLoops means to say is that while the downvoter is anonymous, the commenter isn't. The protection scale is different for one who voices his opinion through commenting, and one who voices his opinion through voting, which creates inequality.
Well, I think after reading your answer to 2) there is no point in discussing this further. If it's set in stone there is no point in it.
Both options remain a choice, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Comments can be about anything and cannot be seen as irrefutable evidence of a vote and thus even if a comment is made, the vote remains anonymous.
This is how the system works now, so the new functionality is focused on improving other areas but not changing our stance on making votes public.