|
On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way. What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of -
1) warning
2) Temp Ban
3) Ban
4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
|
On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads;
2) RL was asked to stop and refused;
3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention;
4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
I don't agree with how they dealt with the fourth point. Banning his content doesn't stop him from doing his vote brigading (I won't continue it further but just wanted to say it's the problem they're trying to fix) and given his reputation of not backing down from confrontations I'd say it encourages him to disparage those in charge more.
I think the real failing on the r/lol moderation team was in number two though. RL is a dickbag but he's not a 100% unreasonable dickbag. I'm sure there's a way for the negotiations to go that would make him re-evaluate how he promotes (or demotes) posts on his social media accounts. I wasn't having the discussion with him so the particulars are unknown to me but I'm not sure that the conversation really did help more than it did hurt the issue. To that point you could make the counter argument, "What do the r/lol moderators owe RL to have to pander to him to get him to stop shitting over the r/lol community?" and the very obvious answer to this question is nothing. There is no reason for the r/lol staff to show RL any ounce of kindness or to handle him with care that would be accorded to a respectable social figure. The problem with this assumption though is that we know what it ended up creating because they didn't handle with the utmost care.
For better or worse the League community has very little founded journalism and even though compared to journalists RL is probably a hack, he's definitely better than all of the others and has more connection and accessibility in the professional scene then most wanna-be journalists do. Given the small size of the community, whether r/lol moderators like it or not RL is a prominent member of the community and is likely to be the person reporting some of the biggest news of the happenings of the scene. Obstructing that content on the basis of RL being a dickbag to people is actually a perfectly reasonable response to want to do, but in actuality it's not the best way to deal with the situation. By banning his content you're certainly denying his articles viewers and therefore revenue so you're hurting him financially in the short term; however given the circlejerk-y nature of reddit you're also having people discuss him all the time and actually increasing his notoriety. Given human nature the more restricted you make something the more of it they want, and I think that's the scenario that's playing out currently. Short term costing him money but continually building a collection of people who are forced to have an opinion on someone when he gets more mentions now then he did before his content was banned.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 22 2015 23:38 Raneth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way. What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed? If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion. Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"? EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior.
Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit.
Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent.
I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear.
More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
On May 23 2015 00:48 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads;
2) RL was asked to stop and refused;
3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention;
4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? I don't agree with how they dealt with the fourth point. Banning his content doesn't stop him from doing his vote brigading (I won't continue it further but just wanted to say it's the problem they're trying to fix) and given his reputation of not backing down from confrontations I'd say it encourages him to disparage those in charge more.
It doesn't stop vote brigading in the sense that his Twitter account wasn't banned, but it does severely curtail it, because the whole point of the vote brigading was to make himself look better in internet arguments. Just because you can't completely solve a problem doesn't mean that solving 95% of it is considered a failure.
I think the real failing on the r/lol moderation team was in number two though. RL is a dickbag but he's not a 100% unreasonable dickbag. I'm sure there's a way for the negotiations to go that would make him re-evaluate how he promotes (or demotes) posts on his social media accounts. I wasn't having the discussion with him so the particulars are unknown to me but I'm not sure that the conversation really did help more than it did hurt the issue. To that point you could make the counter argument, "What do the r/lol moderators owe RL to have to pander to him to get him to stop shitting over the r/lol community?" and the very obvious answer to this question is nothing. There is no reason for the r/lol staff to show RL any ounce of kindness or to handle him with care that would be accorded to a respectable social figure. The problem with this assumption though is that we know what it ended up creating because they didn't handle with the utmost care.
You obviously have never tried to disagree with RL. I assure you that based on what we know of how he interacts with people, there was zero chance the moderators could have gotten him to stop.
For better or worse the League community has very little founded journalism and even though compared to journalists RL is probably a hack, he's definitely better than all of the others and has more connection and accessibility in the professional scene then most wanna-be journalists do. Given the small size of the community, whether r/lol moderators like it or not RL is a prominent member of the community and is likely to be the person reporting some of the biggest news of the happenings of the scene. Obstructing that content on the basis of RL being a dickbag to people is actually a perfectly reasonable response to want to do, but in actuality it's not the best way to deal with the situation. By banning his content you're certainly denying his articles viewers and therefore revenue so you're hurting him financially in the short term; however given the circlejerk-y nature of reddit you're also having people discuss him all the time and actually increasing his notoriety. Given human nature the more restricted you make something the more of it they want, and I think that's the scenario that's playing out currently. Short term costing him money but continually building a collection of people who are forced to have an opinion on someone when he gets more mentions now then he did before his content was banned.
I strongly disagree with just about everything here. There's no evidence suggesting that the moderators banned RL to hurt him financially, they did so because his articles was the site of all the disruption. RL is not an invaluable journalist; he mostly publishes roster leaks and clickbait. The scene is fine without him, and making people forget about him by excluding his material from the most important content aggregator for the scene is the best way for us to all be rid of this pathetic and disgusting human being.
That's honestly what I consider the most disappointing aspect of this saga. It lionizes wholly undeserving individuals as RL and esportslaw who are really pretty sub-standard at their professions and would be laughed out of professional journalism / legal practice, except that esports has no standards.
|
On May 23 2015 12:56 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 23:38 Raneth wrote:On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way. What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed? If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion. Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"? EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff. It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior. Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit. Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent. I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear. More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content."
You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy!
Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for 
EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it!
|
I don't understand.
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/hXvi5/b4968d0b14.png)
They're literally banning for using their website... so yeah, I don't think these vote manipulation rules are a particularly useful thing. I don't even know what I did.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 23 2015 21:18 Raneth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 12:56 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 22 2015 23:38 Raneth wrote:On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way. What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed? If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion. Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"? EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff. It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior. Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit. Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent. I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear. More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules. Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content." You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy! Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it!
You are more optimistic than me if you think that will eliminate people complaining about subjectivity of the rule. What's the definition of thread? Can RL link to a comments section that contains some discussion of him? Or is he only barred from linking to the specific comment thread? How do you define "about themselves or their content"? How expansive is "about"? Does the original article have to be about him? Or is it just a specific comment thread? Does that mean he can just link to a comments section of a link not about RL but discussing RL, and say "downvote the retards who don't like me?" Or, if you want to be fair to him, is he banned if he links a comment section, and then one of his Twitter followers starts talking about him there?
This is why we have lawyers and judges: because there are concepts far, far more important than vote brigading that are even more difficult to define sharply. You believe the moderators acted as legislators. I disagree. I believe the moderators acted as judges: they interpreted the "no vote brigading" rule to include what RL was doing (based off of the TB precedent), and they "sentenced" him accordingly.
The original rule is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of "vote brigading", and intentionally left open to interpretation. You think there's some sort of gigantic problem with this system that allows vague and ambiguous rules open to interpretation, but try looking up the definition of "negligence" some time. We sent people to jail over definitions way more vague than "vote brigading".
On May 23 2015 22:06 Ansibled wrote:I don't understand. They're literally banning for using their website... so yeah, I don't think these vote manipulation rules are a particularly useful thing. I don't even know what I did.
To clarify -- Reddit administrators, not leagueoflegends mods, temporarily banned your account after you engaged in some vote brigading? You sound like one of the whiners from the Automated Ban Thread when you say "they're literally banning for using their website". You are in their house and you don't bother to learn, understand, or obey their rules.
|
Can you point me to the rule that says clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense? Thanks.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 23 2015 22:54 Ansibled wrote:
Can you point me to the rule that says clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense? Thanks.
Since the admin told you:
followed a link from /r/lol into another subreddit and voted
So if you characterize what happened as "clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense" then you are either being purposefully dense or deliberately misleading. You said "Banned for literally using their website" ... I don't know how else you'd be banned. I'd be way more shocked if you were banned for NOT literally using their website, like if you got banned because you started grouting your bathroom tiles or something.
Anyway you can read some of the general logic behind discouraging "subreddit invasion" and "vote brigading" here: http://www.reddit.com/r/NoParticipation/wiki/intro
Plus you got your ban lifted. Chill out dude.
|
Korea (South)11232 Posts
On May 23 2015 23:04 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 22:54 Ansibled wrote:
Can you point me to the rule that says clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense? Thanks. Since the admin told you: So if you characterize what happened as "clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense" then you are either being purposefully dense or deliberately misleading. You said "Banned for literally using their website" ... I don't know how else you'd be banned. I'd be way more shocked if you were banned for NOT literally using their website, like if you got banned because you started grouting your bathroom tiles or something. Anyway you can read some of the general logic behind discouraging "subreddit invasion" and "vote brigading" here: http://www.reddit.com/r/NoParticipation/wiki/introPlus you got your ban lifted. Chill out dude.
everybody posts their reddit links on Twitter and Facebook but nobody gets banned for it except Rlewis. Moderating the vote brigade is a hard part of Reddit no doubt but you just can't ban content. He can still vote brigrade even when his content is banned.
I stand by "banning content is wrong when you claim you are a community based website"
|
On May 23 2015 22:45 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 21:18 Raneth wrote:On May 23 2015 12:56 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 22 2015 23:38 Raneth wrote:On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way. What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed? If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion. Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"? EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff. It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior. Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit. Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent. I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear. More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules. Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content." You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy! Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it! You are more optimistic than me if you think that will eliminate people complaining about subjectivity of the rule. What's the definition of thread? Can RL link to a comments section that contains some discussion of him? Or is he only barred from linking to the specific comment thread? How do you define "about themselves or their content"? How expansive is "about"? Does the original article have to be about him? Or is it just a specific comment thread? Does that mean he can just link to a comments section of a link not about RL but discussing RL, and say "downvote the retards who don't like me?" Or, if you want to be fair to him, is he banned if he links a comment section, and then one of his Twitter followers starts talking about him there? This is why we have lawyers and judges: because there are concepts far, far more important than vote brigading that are even more difficult to define sharply. You believe the moderators acted as legislators. I disagree. I believe the moderators acted as judges: they interpreted the "no vote brigading" rule to include what RL was doing (based off of the TB precedent), and they "sentenced" him accordingly. The original rule is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of "vote brigading", and intentionally left open to interpretation. You think there's some sort of gigantic problem with this system that allows vague and ambiguous rules open to interpretation, but try looking up the definition of "negligence" some time. We sent people to jail over definitions way more vague than "vote brigading".
Following standard philosophical method (always take a statement in its strongest possible form) Then no, he would not be allowed to do any of the things you just suggested (exception to one: see edit 2), which is why I suggested my suggestion was probably too strong, but it can be easily refined.
Coming up with definitions that make sense in the first place is why we have philosophers!  I disagree that I am saying they were acting as legislators, I 100% agree that they are acting as judges. I am advocating that they use this opportunity TO legislate, for what is clearly a controversial, and poorly defined rule so that in future they can continue to judge easily and with less conflict!
Pointing to a poor and general definition that is commonly used and saying "look how vague this is, therefore vague things are fine" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Even if a certain degree of interpretation is inevitable in any given rule, that does not mean one has an excuse to not strive for as close to a rigid, intelligible and understandable rule as possible.
(about me being optimistic, to my credit, I did put "hopefully" as a qualifier I am not naive enough to think that anything can solve all issues, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help, and it doesn't mean its not worth trying!)
Looking forward to hearing from you
EDIT: Sorry for my late reply, I was mucho busy earlier this weekend! :D
EDIT 2: In specific response to: If he were to link to a thread, and that thread -then- began discussing him in the thread, would he be banned? No, and I dont think a correct interpretation of my (admittedly broad) suggestion would think that to be the case, nor do I see that we would want it to be the case, but lets say a correct interpretation of my first suggestion does, lets adapt it to show how refining a rule can be successfully.
So we don't want people to be retroactively punished, how could we change my suggestion to stop this?
We can break it into two simple rules:
(Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content) - original
- Content creators may not post links to threads that include their content or discussion of their content in the OP, or threads where discussion of their content has already taken place.
- Content creators may not post links to threads if discussion about them has already taken place in the thread.
(we can define thread as well if you like, or perhaps remove it with a more useful term, such as comment section if you think that would more aptly suit the needs of our rule!)
|
I am interested in why vote brigading something that is already popular, like a comment that Richard Lewis posts on twitter, or something on /r/bestof is bad. It seems to me it is just additional people contributing their opinions on a subject. The only time I really see it as a negative is the way that LoL youtubers coordinated it around T=0 of a post being posted, which apparently is heavily weighted in the algorithm. Which means things that people don't actually like are reaching the "hot" page.
So perhaps someone can explain the logic behind that.
|
Vote brigading is bad because when RL was doing it, he essentially was able to get his twitter followers to bury any criticism of him or his work even when the criticism was completely warranted. Vote brigading is bad because it allows people with lots of followers to control the dialogue.
Vote brigading, as far as RL drama goes, is not simply getting people interested in a submission or comment. It's manipulating discourse the same way unlimited campaign spending manipulates political discourse.
On May 25 2015 04:19 Raneth wrote:
-snip-
Look, the problem is not writing the rule. It's closing loopholes that will inevitably rise when the rule is made. You can spend literal centuries writing rules and laws and still have a rule with loopholes. It's far more efficient to create a general rule and have people interpret and enforce the rule, rather than to spend ridiculous amounts of time and energy carefully crafting a 50 page essay on what constitutes vote brigading.
Right now, RL's argument is that he's not "vote brigading" because he's not explicitly telling people to go up/down vote posts. Obviously, he knows that whenever he links a posts and says "what a fuckign dumbass" his little twitter army will swarm the post and downvote it. He doesn't need to be explicit about vote brigading in order to do it.
Your proposals sound fine in theory, but theory and reality are different things. Go ahead, propose that content creators cannot link their submissions. RL can just link the article on twitter and tell his followers to link it to Reddit. He can't link to Reddit comments? Fine, he'll just mention a user's name and the name of the thread and say disparaging things about the user's comment, knowing full well his followers will downvote it.
Loopholes happen and they will always happen. It'd be nice if everyone used your philosophical method and obeyed and understood that the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of the rule. But unfortunately, that's not how reality works.
Is the moderation team going to be over or under inclusive sometimes? Yes. Does it suck? Yes, absolutely. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis of whether that over/under inclusiveness is worth it.
|
On May 26 2015 08:56 Ryuu314 wrote:
Right now, RL's argument is that he's not "vote brigading" because he's not explicitly telling people to go up/down vote posts. Obviously, he knows that whenever he links a posts and says "what a fucking dumbass" his little twitter army will swarm the post and downvote it. He doesn't need to be explicit about vote brigading in order to do it.
So how is that different from the lolesport twitter account tweeting links to answers from an AMA of casters ? Because they do not asked for upvotes, but if I were to thinkl like you did, we could argue that they should know they were gonna create massive upvotes for this answers. After all, they got 683k followers when RL "only" got 28k in his "twitter army".
Im pretty sure Vote Brigading case should be made on intent, because if they won't then every pro that ever twitted a link to a reddit comment is guilty of it.
I've seen the answer to TotalBuscuit by a reddit admin concerning vote-brigading, and I don't agree with him. If reddit as an issue whit people linking to comments without any explicit call to vote-brigade, then they should get rid of the feature. If not, they should just shut the fuck off.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 24 2015 20:43 Chexx wrote:
everybody posts their reddit links on Twitter and Facebook but nobody gets banned for it except Rlewis. Moderating the vote brigade is a hard part of Reddit no doubt but you just can't ban content. He can still vote brigrade even when his content is banned.
I stand by "banning content is wrong when you claim you are a community based website"
I feel like you haven't read most of the posts in this thread, and you're one of the ones most guilty of repeating the same points that people have endlessly discussed without adding anything.
Vote brigading is a subjective label that describes behavior conducted with certain intent. It is not an objective label that describes behavior alone. It is up to the moderators of a subreddit to decide what qualifies as vote brigading. The fact that RL's content is banned does not prevent him from vote brigading, but RL's vote brigading was entirely limited to his own content because he primarily cared about winning internet arguments about him, and the RL content ban has appeared to be effective in stopping RL's vote brigading.
Finally, your proposed position that banning content is "wrong" suggests that the moderators have some sort of moral obligation to allow RL's content on their subreddit. Not only does no such moral obligation exist, there are so many content bans in place already: are you similarly opposed to their "censorship" of Rule 34 LoL content or LoL memes? Is it "wrong" for /r/liberal to ban content from FoxNews? Is it "wrong" for /r/fatpeoplehate to ban all content not mocking fat people? The subreddit moderators get to choose what content they want to see on their subreddit. If you don't like their decisions, visit RiotFreeLoL instead.
Really, I'm disappointed that a TL admin has no sympathy for these moderators. What would you do if there was someone was poisoning this community without being a member of it? Would you stand idly by? The moderators of the subreddit were put in a terrible place and managed to come up with the only viable solution under the circumstances. And yet people like you complain that they are overstepping their bounds. Why don't they get to police their own community? What would you have them do instead?
On May 25 2015 04:19 Raneth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 22:45 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 23 2015 21:18 Raneth wrote:On May 23 2015 12:56 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 22 2015 23:38 Raneth wrote:On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way. What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed? If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion. Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"? EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff. It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior. Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit. Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent. I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear. More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules. Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content." You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy! Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it! You are more optimistic than me if you think that will eliminate people complaining about subjectivity of the rule. What's the definition of thread? Can RL link to a comments section that contains some discussion of him? Or is he only barred from linking to the specific comment thread? How do you define "about themselves or their content"? How expansive is "about"? Does the original article have to be about him? Or is it just a specific comment thread? Does that mean he can just link to a comments section of a link not about RL but discussing RL, and say "downvote the retards who don't like me?" Or, if you want to be fair to him, is he banned if he links a comment section, and then one of his Twitter followers starts talking about him there? This is why we have lawyers and judges: because there are concepts far, far more important than vote brigading that are even more difficult to define sharply. You believe the moderators acted as legislators. I disagree. I believe the moderators acted as judges: they interpreted the "no vote brigading" rule to include what RL was doing (based off of the TB precedent), and they "sentenced" him accordingly. The original rule is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of "vote brigading", and intentionally left open to interpretation. You think there's some sort of gigantic problem with this system that allows vague and ambiguous rules open to interpretation, but try looking up the definition of "negligence" some time. We sent people to jail over definitions way more vague than "vote brigading". Following standard philosophical method (always take a statement in its strongest possible form) Then no, he would not be allowed to do any of the things you just suggested (exception to one: see edit 2), which is why I suggested my suggestion was probably too strong, but it can be easily refined. Coming up with definitions that make sense in the first place is why we have philosophers! I disagree that I am saying they were acting as legislators, I 100% agree that they are acting as judges. I am advocating that they use this opportunity TO legislate, for what is clearly a controversial, and poorly defined rule so that in future they can continue to judge easily and with less conflict! Pointing to a poor and general definition that is commonly used and saying "look how vague this is, therefore vague things are fine" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Even if a certain degree of interpretation is inevitable in any given rule, that does not mean one has an excuse to not strive for as close to a rigid, intelligible and understandable rule as possible.
Why is it invalid? You suggest that this rule is problematic. I point to the fact that an even more vague definition exists with much harsher punishments, and yet American society copes with it perfectly fine. Therefore it is implausible to suggest that this rule being vaguely worded is problematic.
You think that we should strive for "rigid, intelligible, and understandable" rules. I do not disagree, but I think the definition should be worded broadly to capture all instances of the "crime", and discretion subsequently invested in the moderators to narrow down the rule in individual circumstances. Any other approach, by definition, results in offending behavior that cannot be punished by the moderators because you defined your rule too narrowly.
The icing on the cake is that the moderators explained their interpretation of the rules to RL. They explained that in their view, what he was doing was considered vote manipulation and against their rules. He refused to obey them, and got his content banned. All of your concerns about unintelligibly vague rules go out the window when the moderators are so patient as to explain to the "criminal" what he is doing wrong and ask him to stop.
We can break it into two simple rules:
(Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content) - original
- Content creators may not post links to threads that include their content or discussion of their content in the OP, or threads where discussion of their content has already taken place.
- Content creators may not post links to threads if discussion about them has already taken place in the thread.
(we can define thread as well if you like, or perhaps remove it with a more useful term, such as comment section if you think that would more aptly suit the needs of our rule!)
Great, now we're on version 2. Let's keep track as we continue to poke holes in your rules:
* I post an article on my blog, then tweet out: "OK guys, I'm told this will be published on Reddit at 4:30PM. Everyone get ready to mass upvote and be sure to downvote anyone that doesn't like me!"
* I see an article talking about my expertise. I tweet: "Hey dudes remind them all of why I rock and spam the comments with links to my articles."
* I see an article talking about someone I dislike. I tweet: "What a fucking retard this guy is. Go get him."
* Someone posts an article criticizing me. I tweet: "Yo check out that stupid fucking guy on the front page. Downvote everyone there that doesn't like me."
These are all blatantly vote brigading behaviors and yet none of them are captured under your rule.
On May 25 2015 04:28 cLutZ wrote:
I am interested in why vote brigading something that is already popular, like a comment that Richard Lewis posts on twitter, or something on /r/bestof is bad. It seems to me it is just additional people contributing their opinions on a subject. The only time I really see it as a negative is the way that LoL youtubers coordinated it around T=0 of a post being posted, which apparently is heavily weighted in the algorithm. Which means things that people don't actually like are reaching the "hot" page.
So perhaps someone can explain the logic behind that.
It disrupts the conversation in a community. Upvotes/downvotes are supposed to reflect the prevailing sentiment of a community. Brigading introduces a lot of outside forces that shape the conversation to their will instead. In addition, it discourages new users from contributing if they are mass downvoted for disagreeing with a popular person.
On May 27 2015 00:48 Majax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 08:56 Ryuu314 wrote:
Right now, RL's argument is that he's not "vote brigading" because he's not explicitly telling people to go up/down vote posts. Obviously, he knows that whenever he links a posts and says "what a fucking dumbass" his little twitter army will swarm the post and downvote it. He doesn't need to be explicit about vote brigading in order to do it. So how is that different from the lolesport twitter account tweeting links to answers from an AMA of casters ? Because they do not asked for upvotes, but if I were to thinkl like you did, we could argue that they should know they were gonna create massive upvotes for this answers. After all, they got 683k followers when RL "only" got 28k in his "twitter army". Im pretty sure Vote Brigading case should be made on intent, because if they won't then every pro that ever twitted a link to a reddit comment is guilty of it. I've seen the answer to TotalBuscuit by a reddit admin concerning vote-brigading, and I don't agree with him. If reddit as an issue whit people linking to comments without any explicit call to vote-brigade, then they should get rid of the feature. If not, they should just shut the fuck off.
As I wrote above, I don't think anyone considers "vote brigading" is an objective measurement of behavior. It's a subjective judgment of behavior with certain intent. LoL casters aren't linking answers with an intent to disrupt the conversation. RL is linking comments with an intent to make sure everyone who doesn't like him is downvoted. And even if you think he is a sweet innocent angel who didn't have that intent, the moderators told him that what he was doing was considered vote brigading, and asked him to stop. He refused to listen and was punished accordingly. Even if their interpretation is totally unreasonable, it's still their interpretation and their subreddit.
|
On May 27 2015 04:43 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Really, I'm disappointed that a TL admin has no sympathy for these moderators. What would you do if there was someone was poisoning this community without being a member of it? Would you stand idly by? The moderators of the subreddit were put in a terrible place and managed to come up with the only viable solution under the circumstances. And yet people like you complain that they are overstepping their bounds. Why don't they get to police their own community? What would you have them do instead?
It really is quite funny considering how teamliquid has handled certain things in the past.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7376702
His temporary stream ban is still in place. He was unbanned on agreement of apologizing and conducting himself better (at least not having his viewers spam us/other streamers.)
|
Baa?21242 Posts
But unlike Reddit we don't hide behind a facade of "open community forum for free discourse."
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 27 2015 23:10 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
But unlike Reddit we don't hide behind a facade of "open community forum for free discourse."
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
Dunno how many more times I gotta say it. Reddit is a "open community forum for free discourse" in the sense that anyone can start a subreddit about anything they want. The subreddit has never described itself as an "open community forum for free discourse". You must be really confused if you think of /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/rule34, and /r/AskHistorians as "open community forums for free discourse".
Even an open community forum for free discourse has rules. If I spammed the subreddit with LoL Rule 34 porn, and use all my Twitter followers to upvote my links, are they hypocritical for banning me and my content? How is it any different if I spam the subreddit with my articles, and then turn every comment section of my articles into a flamewar where my fanbase relentlessly downvotes anyone critical of me?
|
So r/leagueoflegends and r/riotfreelol are like Isreal and Palestina?
|
On May 23 2015 00:48 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads;
2) RL was asked to stop and refused;
3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention;
4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with? I don't agree with how they dealt with the fourth point. Banning his content doesn't stop him from doing his vote brigading (I won't continue it further but just wanted to say it's the problem they're trying to fix) and given his reputation of not backing down from confrontations I'd say it encourages him to disparage those in charge more. I think the real failing on the r/lol moderation team was in number two though. RL is a dickbag but he's not a 100% unreasonable dickbag. I'm sure there's a way for the negotiations to go that would make him re-evaluate how he promotes (or demotes) posts on his social media accounts. I wasn't having the discussion with him so the particulars are unknown to me but I'm not sure that the conversation really did help more than it did hurt the issue. To that point you could make the counter argument, "What do the r/lol moderators owe RL to have to pander to him to get him to stop shitting over the r/lol community?" and the very obvious answer to this question is nothing. There is no reason for the r/lol staff to show RL any ounce of kindness or to handle him with care that would be accorded to a respectable social figure. The problem with this assumption though is that we know what it ended up creating because they didn't handle with the utmost care. For better or worse the League community has very little founded journalism and even though compared to journalists RL is probably a hack, he's definitely better than all of the others and has more connection and accessibility in the professional scene then most wanna-be journalists do. Given the small size of the community, whether r/lol moderators like it or not RL is a prominent member of the community and is likely to be the person reporting some of the biggest news of the happenings of the scene. Obstructing that content on the basis of RL being a dickbag to people is actually a perfectly reasonable response to want to do, but in actuality it's not the best way to deal with the situation. By banning his content you're certainly denying his articles viewers and therefore revenue so you're hurting him financially in the short term; however given the circlejerk-y nature of reddit you're also having people discuss him all the time and actually increasing his notoriety. Given human nature the more restricted you make something the more of it they want, and I think that's the scenario that's playing out currently. Short term costing him money but continually building a collection of people who are forced to have an opinion on someone when he gets more mentions now then he did before his content was banned.
RLew has stated over and over that he doesn't get paid by clicks.
|
Which is why his content being banned and therefore less trafficked doesn't have any influence on his income at all, right? Just because he's not paid on a cost per click basis doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the range of viewers his articles will reach. I can promise you that the Daily Dot cares about how many clicks their site gets, and pay RL for his articles to reach front page news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
