#1 Posted by Vytorious (99 posts) -

I love the feeling that this site is more friendly toward user-created content than others. It may be because the recent launch has the administrators busy and/or no regulatory system has been established. This is my basic idea(s) to which I hope GiantBomb considers. I hated how GameSpot moderated content, and want that to change here.


1. Moderators are elected by the community by merit for a limited term.

Having a select few having moderator privileges allows the editors and administrators to focus more on the site, produce compelling content, instead of regulating the community 24/7. I also like the idea of cycling members through, a spoils system, that keeps people honest and the community involved.

***The downside to this system is each individual charged with the powers of moderation will interpret the Terms of Use (When one is constructed), and what is considered appropriate differently. Consistency in moderation is very important.

2. User-controlled moderation

I like the direction taken on rating individual posts. Give it a plus if you agree or believe the post adds greatly to the discussion. Click the minus for posts you disagree with strongly or doesn't contribute to the discussion. This concept can be expanded on by allowing users to "Report Abuse" after voting against an offensive post.

If enough users find something offensive, the post will be voted out of view and reported to moderators. This concept of self-moderation is very efficient since everyone viewing the content can immediate purge any SPAM or to what they deem inappropriate. It also isn't subject to a limited interpretation of the Terms of Use (When one is constructed), or what is considered appropriate as would a completely separate moderation team.

***There is a downside to this also; this type of system will be subject to bias of the community. If a user submits a completely legitimate, appropriate, and healthy argument into a discussion, a community with a bias against that opinion could easily vote to hide such content from view.

This is What I Propose

A hybrid system of both. Much of the content is viewed, obviously, by the average users. They can quickly assess what they find inappropriate, vote the post down, and report the offensive content. With enough votes the content is hidden from view, but still viewable upon viewer request. A moderator then comes later and will judge whether or not to completely purge the content, and whether further action must be taken against the user that posted the content.

What Do You Think?

I know much of this stuff is already in place, or is soon going to be, but it will be nice to have some guideline to which it works. Please contribute, criticize, or comment. I want to see GiantBomb a predominantly community-driven website. 

***I wrote this late at night, so please forgive grammatical errors, I will proof read and fix what is needed once I get some sleep.
#2 Posted by Oriental_Jams (3063 posts) -

Nice idea, sadly probably not going to happen.

#3 Posted by Clean (2359 posts) -

your going some places kid. I believe you will be a policeman.

but seriously some good thought and ideas but we'll just have to wait on how the cookie crumbles

#4 Posted by Tridgen (120 posts) -

yeah it seems like a good idea...even if i really don't know what to think.

in resume all we need are mods and as soon as possible

#5 Posted by Batman (1016 posts) -

Yeah I like the idea of a democracy over GS's communist ways.

#6 Posted by ROWD (129 posts) -

it needs something

#7 Posted by Schizoid (1064 posts) -

Moderators elected by the community? That's a bad idea from what I've seen in the past, it just ends up that people with the most posts end up in power because people see them the most. Don't we already have user moderation with the ratings to the right side of the post? We are missing a report button, but half of it's already there.

#8 Posted by Xeros606 (545 posts) -

no porn, no ads/spamming, no trolling/rickroll/etc.

imo thats all we really need, and we should have mods around to delete posts if necessary. the reason gs moderation system sucked was that it had too many rules and mods were allowed to choose what went down. mods there abused their power instead of using it to help the community. i like your idea, there should be random mod drafting every week so that nobody stayed a mod for too long and everybody would be a mod at one point.

#9 Posted by WhySoSerious (646 posts) -

No Rickrolling?

Shucks.

#10 Posted by Xeros606 (545 posts) -
WhySoSerious said:
"No Rickrolling?

Shucks.
"
nope. i propose that if you even post a false link to a video, then you, your family, and your closest friends must be banned from the face of the planet.
#11 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

What we need is a system where users can flag a topic or post which notifies the moderation team who then investigate and decide upon a course of action. However instead of one moderator just deciding how to deal with the issue and then carrying out the punishment. They would have to get a second or third opinion on the course of action they intend to take against the user who's topic or post was flagged. By having 1 or 2 other moderators agree with the first over what action needs to be taken it would perhaps provide a more equal style of moderation. It would also hopefully decrease the number of mistakes and abuses of power that can happen with moderators, especially new moderators.

I would also suggest that Giant Bomb allow users to see which moderator(s) took action against them so users can see if they are perhaps being picked on by moderators, which again can happen. Not always but in my experience as a moderator on a website i have come across fellow Mods who have held grudges against users and pick them up on the smallest of things.

As for how moderators are chosen i don't think it should be down to how much they've contributed in terms of edits and submissions for changes to articles. It should be based on their quality of posting and conduct around the website. Choosing moderators based on how many points or submissions they've made to improving the website isn't a good thing in my opinion as it doesn't reflect their attitude or persona that well. All it says is those users have made large numbers of submissions most likely in the hopes of getting a higher point and post count thinking it will get them chosen to be a moderator.

#12 Posted by Vytorious (99 posts) -
Hamz said:
"What we need is a system where users can flag a topic or post which notifies the moderation team who then investigate and decide upon a course of action. However instead of one moderator just deciding how to deal with the issue and then carrying out the punishment. They would have to get a second or third opinion on the course of action they intend to take against the user who's topic or post was flagged. By having 1 or 2 other moderators agree with the first over what action needs to be taken it would perhaps provide a more equal style of moderation. It would also hopefully decrease the number of mistakes and abuses of power that can happen with moderators, especially new moderators.

I would also suggest that Giant Bomb allow users to see which moderator(s) took action against them so users can see if they are perhaps being picked on by moderators, which again can happen. Not always but in my experience as a moderator on a website i have come across fellow Mods who have held grudges against users and pick them up on the smallest of things.

As for how moderators are chosen i don't think it should be down to how much they've contributed in terms of edits and submissions for changes to articles. It should be based on their quality of posting and conduct around the website. Choosing moderators based on how many points or submissions they've made to improving the website isn't a good thing in my opinion as it doesn't reflect their attitude or persona that well. All it says is those users have made large numbers of submissions most likely in the hopes of getting a higher point and post count thinking it will get them chosen to be a moderator.
"
I really like the idea of open records users can view of moderations. As several people point out, I have to also agree that many users will be chosen for a moderation position by their amount of posts.

Also, while the idea of several moderators agreeing to a action against a post is nice, I can't imagine it being efficient. How I can see that working is if several moderators are assigned to each board and instances entering a queue have to approved by two members of the moderation team. Still slow, but better.

There is also an issue with some moderators not being on the boards at consistent times, so there is no way to ensure enough moderators are available to take action on something offensive.
#13 Posted by Atlas (2457 posts) -

I don't care how it happens, I just want some mods. Please.

#14 Posted by Vytorious (99 posts) -
Atlas said:
"I don't care how it happens, I just want some mods. Please."
I agree. But the best thing to do right now is to ignore those threads. Don't post in them.
#15 Posted by ferretzor (38 posts) -

Yeah. I've already seen some stuff on here that just... shouldn't be here. Let's get some mods indeed.

#16 Posted by RVonE (4700 posts) -

I wouldn't want moderators that are selected by the community. The staff should pick the people they think are best suited.

#17 Posted by DannyBoy (16 posts) -

I wouldn't want the moderators selected by the community either. Also the whole idea about having them in short temporary terms doesn't sound efficient. It'd be a popularity contest and people who hated a moderator because they were banned will probably seek to damage them.

#18 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -
DannyBoy said:
"I wouldn't want the moderators selected by the community either. Also the whole idea about having them in short temporary terms doesn't sound efficient. It'd be a popularity contest and people who hated a moderator because they were banned will probably seek to damage them.
"
You could always have it so each moderator is on a month cycle, so once they get the position they will hand it over to someone else after one month?
#19 Posted by Aarny91 (3914 posts) -

I will be a moderator Poppa!.

#20 Posted by PullTheTricker (2 posts) -

As long as the rules don't restrict freedom of speech like they do in Gamespot.

GS is dictatorship, if this place turns out the same. I'm out.

#21 Posted by MrMiyamoto (1272 posts) -

User Elections don't sound that great, it is just like some popularity contest...

#22 Posted by xplodedd (1316 posts) -
Atlas said:
"I don't care how it happens, I just want some mods. Please."
they will get them, infact i am pretty sure they will have some by next week.
#23 Edited by Caddy (308 posts) -

Moderators have to be selected by staff. It's their site and they have to make sure they can pick people they can trust. The thing with letting 'the community' decide is they might pick people that won't make good mods, and while they might not abuse their power, they won't do much good either in terms of keeping the bad stuff away.

Of course staff can make the same mistake, but they can easily sort that out.

That is of course only my opinion.

#24 Posted by Premier111 (170 posts) -

I agree with Cad, though when a new site is made, and the first draft includes alot of unknown people, it would be nice if the community pitched in to make sure that they soon-to-be choices were good ones. Good to see you here cad, if that is you.

I would just like to see more freedom of speech, and less of the fads. I will wait till after the first draft of mods to see where the site is headed.