US judge bars statements made by Guantánamo detainees during FBI interrogations
9
votes
huadpe's recent activity
-
-
DOJ: Trump's immigration crackdown 'diverting' resources from drug cases
6 votes -
Comment on Daily Tildes discussion - our first ban in ~tildes.official
-
Comment on Community moderators? in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentNeutralPolitics has a public modlogs system which one of our mods built which keeps a lot of information private and is pretty customizable. https://modlogs.fyi/r/NeutralPoliticsNeutralPolitics has a public modlogs system which one of our mods built which keeps a lot of information private and is pretty customizable.
-
Comment on Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck in ~transport
huadpe LinkThis will probably be a huge liability headache for Uber, and reflects the broader liability problem for self-driving cars. Even if self-driving cars are much safer than human-driven cars, they...This will probably be a huge liability headache for Uber, and reflects the broader liability problem for self-driving cars.
Even if self-driving cars are much safer than human-driven cars, they may cost more in liability than human-driven cars.
The reason for this is that carmakers have much deeper pockets than individuals.
The median net worth in the US is about $50,000, and most of that is judgment proof for most individuals (home equity, retirement accounts). So most of the time, when someone is at fault in a car crash, they're only going to be able to be sued for their insurance. According to the NYT quoting an industry group, about 13% of Americans have no insurance, and 20% buy the state minimum insurance.
So for roughly 1/3 of crashes, we'd expect a recovery of under $50,000 to be possible. Spitballing, but let's say the max recoverable in a car crash averages about $200,000. (There's gonna be some high outliers when multimillionaires crash their cars).
With a human life often being given a dollar value in the multiple millions of dollars, this implies we're about an order of magnitude off in undercompensating victims of vehicular crashes. If self-driving carmakers face full tort liability, they'd need to be more than 10x as safe as human drivers to see any savings, though the social savings would be large even below that, as we would much more generously compensate victims of car crashes and their families.
-
Comment on Community moderators? in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentI think this really depends on scale. Even at pretty large scales, multiple reports on a comment are just not very common. E.g. at 500k+ subs and with hyper-strict rules, it's quite uncommon for a...I think this really depends on scale. Even at pretty large scales, multiple reports on a comment are just not very common.
E.g. at 500k+ subs and with hyper-strict rules, it's quite uncommon for a CMV comment to get multiple user reports, and that's usually only for like a controversial top comment on a high-upvote post, and usually they're frivolous.
Even without any report weight system, we enacted a rule that 2 comment reports has automod remove the comment for mod review, and that is a pretty uncommon thing (maybe 1-2 a day, and they're usually right).
I also wouldn't necessarily tell users that their reports are powerful enough to remove comments.
Alternatively, you could combine report weight with like a flame-score on the comment based on sentiment analysis, and allow have the high-report-weight reports only remove when combined with a low sentiment score.
-
Comment on Community moderators? in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentSo this is definitely interesting. I definitely see what you're saying about growth challenges changing culture. I've been with NP's mod team since about 50k subs and we're closing on 250k now....So this is definitely interesting. I definitely see what you're saying about growth challenges changing culture.
I've been with NP's mod team since about 50k subs and we're closing on 250k now. It's been an adjustment, and we have to deal with a lot more bad faith content than we used to.
One option I'd propose separate from the prioritized vote system would be an automatic removal-on-report for users with a history of constructive reports. So if, e.g. 90%+ of the time a user reports a comment or submission, a mod does end up removing it, then it might make sense that their reports result in removal, with a mod/admin then coming along later to confirm the action or not.
Not logistically possible on Reddit, but it should be possible here I suppose.
-
Comment on URL Tracking & Tildes in ~tildes
-
Comment on Daily Tildes discussion - annoyances so far? in ~tildes.official
huadpe LinkIs it possible to have a higher contrast mode for display? Especially for the "light" mode I'd prefer if there were a black text on white background option.Is it possible to have a higher contrast mode for display? Especially for the "light" mode I'd prefer if there were a black text on white background option.
-
Comment on Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentShockingly, it is not. (Also I hate portmanteaus like "reddiquette.") Pure advice is generally bad guidance, or at least not very useful guidance. Useful guidance is stuff about "these are the...Shockingly, it is not.
(Also I hate portmanteaus like "reddiquette.")
Pure advice is generally bad guidance, or at least not very useful guidance. Useful guidance is stuff about "these are the things we will look for when making moderation decisions." Even if you end up with balancing tests, you have an idea of what sort of things get weighed.
-
Comment on Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentTo be fair, I do not visit /r/politics just about ever, or any of the other big news/politics subs, so it might be that their megathreads are something more than I'm giving credit for. I think...To be fair, I do not visit /r/politics just about ever, or any of the other big news/politics subs, so it might be that their megathreads are something more than I'm giving credit for.
I think something like "this is a thread for posting links to interesting stories about X event or subject" is a perfectly fine way to run a politics group which would meet the criteria I set before of "some purpose which excludes people posting merely to be heard."
-
Comment on Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentDo check out the CMV wiki. We have a lot of pages other than just the rules. Obviously a lot of it is CMV specific, but it's a lot of generally useful info. I once got a bit testy with the Reddit...Do check out the CMV wiki. We have a lot of pages other than just the rules. Obviously a lot of it is CMV specific, but it's a lot of generally useful info. I once got a bit testy with the Reddit admins and pointed out that CMV has more public facing guidance than all of Reddit.
-
Comment on Feature request: Message preview in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentAh, didn't even realize it was RES and not Reddit doing that. I agree it may not be as necessary for most people - I am a weird power user with unusual need to copy that sort of thing because I...Ah, didn't even realize it was RES and not Reddit doing that. I agree it may not be as necessary for most people - I am a weird power user with unusual need to copy that sort of thing because I end up writing long heavily formatted comments a lot.
-
Comment on Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentI'd also suggest having a look at rule B, where we have a long list of indicators of soapboxing which I think are very handy if you're trying to mod for that sort of thing. Copypastaing below (and...I'd also suggest having a look at rule B, where we have a long list of indicators of soapboxing which I think are very handy if you're trying to mod for that sort of thing. Copypastaing below (and praying the formatting works):
- Evidence of soapboxing includes (but is not limited to):
* Asking few or no genuine questions
* Seeming more interested in arguing or convincing others than in understanding opposing viewpoints
* Writing your explanation or responses like a persuasive essay, "rant"(or linking to external rants by you or someone else), or call to action for other users (such as linking email addresses or social media accounts in an attempt to brigade)
* Reiterating parts of your explanation in responses to comments, especially repetitively
* Ignoring the main points of a comment's argument, especially to pounce on some minor inconsistency
* Refusing to make concessions that an alternative viewpoint has any merit
* Focusing on the weaker arguments, especially when OP participates in a particular thread as long as the arguments are weak, and then drops it as soon as a strong argument is made
* Explicit statements of intent to change peoples' minds
* Posting in advocacy groups related to the view, such as to ask for advice on how best to make their arguments.
* Arbitrarily limiting which lines of argument you will discuss, especially while complaining that most/all respondents have "missed the point".
- Evidence of soapboxing includes (but is not limited to):
-
Comment on Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentMegathreads are probably marginally better than linkposts, if for no other reason than that they put submissions into exclusively moderator hands, so in that manner it prevents submission rants,...Megathreads are probably marginally better than linkposts, if for no other reason than that they put submissions into exclusively moderator hands, so in that manner it prevents submission rants, though they'd still come up in the comments a lot.
I think though it is appropriate for Tildes to say certain classes of content like political essays just are not welcome here in any forum, and should be removed, even if the lack of a forum for them causes some "bleeding" out into other forums.
For what it's worth, my read of the stupid Reddit userpage thing was about giving people a place to post stuff like political rants which literally no subreddit of any meaningful size wants, because they're garbage.
-
Comment on Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentHm, it's hard to say, obviously for mod tools it's largely a question of usability. My workflow on moderating Reddit is pretty crappy, largely around the situations where we want mod consensus...Hm, it's hard to say, obviously for mod tools it's largely a question of usability. My workflow on moderating Reddit is pretty crappy, largely around the situations where we want mod consensus before taking action (on CMV that'd be for rule B removals and ban votes). Canned removal reasons from mod toolbox are super helpful also, both in creating consistency among the mod team and just making life easier.
We also use keyword lists to get reports for likely rule breaking words so we see them in modqueue without users needing to report. -
Thoughts on handling political content on Tildes
(0) Background This is coming off a discussion in today's thread on forming new groups around whether or not to add a group for politics. I expressed there that, given my moderator experience on...
(0) Background
This is coming off a discussion in today's thread on forming new groups around whether or not to add a group for politics. I expressed there that, given my moderator experience on /r/ChangeMyView and /r/NeutralPolitics, I opposed making such a group given how Tildes currently stands.
(1) Political discussion is nearly always garbage.
I don't think anyone needs reminding of this, but political discussion almost uniformly fails to achieve anything positive in almost any social media platform. Your uncle's facebook rants? Garbage. Political sniping on Twitter? Garbage. The endless repetitive point scoring and outrage fest on most political subreddits? Garbage.
So, we have to ask, why is this content garbage?
(2) People want to be heard, but nobody wants to hear.
I do not think political discussion is garbage because of bad faith trolling. That certainly exists and does not help, but usually it's not hard to ID the trolls, and excepting egregious stuff like doxxing or threats, to ignore obvious bad faith absurdity.
The much bigger issue is that what people want to do is to be heard and validated in their political views. This is not merely that they want to proselytize or to win converts, but that they're seeking validation and a sense of rightness or righteousness in their statements.
This desire is toxic to a neutral forum, because invariably on any divisive issue, you will not merely be heard and validated, but will be challenged and denigrated. Indeed, often the challenges and denigrations themselves are the same performance in reverse. Members of each team trying to dunk on the other and earn validation for how hard they owned the other side.
(3) To overcome this, a successful political forum must have a purpose other than mere commentary.
On /r/ChangeMyView and /r/NeutralPolitics, we have been able to build forums which have large amounts of productive and non-hostile political discussion. The key to this is that neither forum allows for being heard, or general discussion, as its reason for being.
On /r/ChangeMyView we limit posts to views people genuinely hold, and are open to changing (CMV rule B). This requires that OPs cannot come to troll or soapbox. It is by far the most frequently used rule of ours in terms of removing submissions, almost always on the soapboxing side.
On /r/NeutralPolitics, we limit posts to neutrally framed questions about political subjects, which can be answered with facts. By doing this, we narrow the scope of discussion away from soliciting feelings (which is an invitation to people posting just to be heard) and towards bringing forth factual information, where people might learn something.
I don't know what purpose a political forum on Tildes might have, but to succeed it must have a clear purpose, and that purpose must be one which excludes people posting merely to be heard.
(4) In addition to a purpose beyond being heard, a political forum must have extreme civility rules.
Both CMV and NP have extremely similar rules in this regard, and they are absolutely crucial to the success of the fora.
In general, any comment or post which in any way denigrates another user should be removed. This is an extremely broad civility rule that is well past what most subreddits do. Calling another user a liar, or accusing them of bad faith posting is banned on both CMV and NP for example, even when such accusations are true.
The prohibition on what even may be seen as justified rudeness is I think the key to a civility rule. It immediately removes from the moderation process any discretion around the substance of the politics, and makes it a neutral rule which can be applied evenly to all parties.
It is also necessary because nothing productive ever happens after bad faith is accused. Almost uniformly, once someone is rude, if there is a response back to them, the response will be rude in kind, usually more severely. People love to try to get the last word in, and a clear, objective rule banning "they started it" spats is also an important component. CMV's wiki has a really good overview of how we enforce this rule there.
(5) Conclusion/TL;DR
I don't know exactly what political content should exist on Tildes. I do know that a general politics group will not work, and that rather a politics channel should be focused on a discrete purpose other than just discussion.
I would almost certainly ban link posts from any politics group, since inherently they're going to act as just headlines for people to pontificate on, without guiding discussion towards a particular goal. I would also obviously enforce civility, and have much stricter moderation of it than I might on a non-politics forum.
Edited for formatting
27 votes -
Comment on Daily Tildes discussion - How's the current set of groups? in ~tildes.official
huadpe Link ParentThere seems to be demand for a broader discussion around this, so I'll try to compose some thoughts from modding those forums later tonight and post it here as its own thread. Edit: also thank you...There seems to be demand for a broader discussion around this, so I'll try to compose some thoughts from modding those forums later tonight and post it here as its own thread.
Edit: also thank you for the kind words about CMV and NP!
-
Comment on Daily Tildes discussion - How's the current set of groups? in ~tildes.official
huadpe Link ParentMods, plural, may be an overstatement. For CMV and NP it's just me here as far as I know. And I should add the proviso that I do not speak on behalf of the mod teams of those subs, just my...Mods, plural, may be an overstatement. For CMV and NP it's just me here as far as I know. And I should add the proviso that I do not speak on behalf of the mod teams of those subs, just my personal experience as a mod.
-
Comment on Feature request: Message preview in ~tildes
huadpe Link ParentAs mentioned, RES has a good model for it. While we're at it, can we also get a "view source" button like Reddit has? I've found it super helpful for copy/pasting from heavily formatted comments...As mentioned, RES has a good model for it.
While we're at it, can we also get a "view source" button like Reddit has? I've found it super helpful for copy/pasting from heavily formatted comments or submissions. Not a high priority request by any means though, as it's just a "nice to have."
So one thing I would consider in future cases is whether there should be tiered "time out" bans before escalating to a permaban.
On CMV we have a two-track system. Ordinary violations can result in 3, 30, and then permabans. There are also special cases like threatening another user or encouraging self harm where we escalate immediately to a first-strike permaban.
If I were modding this user on CMV, I'd probably have done a 3 day, though the tagging abuse might have been in the same category of how we handle report spam, where we would escalate to an immediate permaban for breaking the site.
The idea of this is that the short bans serve as a combo warning and cool off period. Just warnings are I think ineffective since people are gonna blow up at you every time when you give a plain warning. But temp-ban-as-warning is pretty effective.