My thoughts on future automated user moderation (locked)

We’re eventually going to need a system of users moderating each other. I predict that we’ll need one by ~10k users online (assuming that room owners appointing room moderators will help as much as I’m thinking it will). Here’s a rough plan I’ve been kicking around in my head lately. Note that this plan is ONLY THE INSANE VISION OF GREG AS A PERSON, NOT THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF KONGREGATE AS A COMPANY. Okay, now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the insanity…

The system would have several tiers, as labeled below:

- New user

- Regular user

- User moderator

- Room moderator

- Normal moderator (current ones)

- Room owner

On to the explanation of each one!

REGULAR USERS

Note that the definition of “regular user” is ONLY used to prevent cheating the system. It does NOT mean that I believe those defined as “regular users” are any more mature or capable of moderating power than “new users.”

Anyway, everyone would default as a new user. To become a regular user, you would need to reach level 10 and have had your account active for at least one month. Once you’ve reached the status of regular user, you can vote to silence another user in chat. (“Silencing” will soon replace most bans on the site entirely. When a user is silenced, he/she cannot chat, leave comments, or post on the forums, but he/she can still log in and earn cards/badges. Silencing will likely replace all banning for durations of less than one week.)

Regular users potentially have the power to silence someone for 30 minutes, but they can’t do it alone. Once a regular user has voted to silence another user, everyone in chat will see a message: “User A has voted to silence User B. Do you agree with this action? Yes/No.” Note that only regular users will be able to vote (or see the second part of the message), and only one vote per IP will count. Additionally, only users who have said something in chat within the past minute can be voted to be silenced.

Once the vote is initiated and regular users start voting, the person will be silenced if the number of people voting “yes” reaches 3 more than the number of people voting “no,” and this 3-person lead remains for a full 10 seconds (to prevent the “yes” people from simply being quick on the draw). If the vote is unsuccessful, no one can choose to initiate a vote to silence that person again for 5 minutes, and the person who initiated the vote cannot initiate another vote (on the same user or on a different one) for 10 minutes. This is to prevent spamming the system.

So, for example, 6 people vote yes and 2 vote no, the offending user will be silenced for 30 minutes. Again, this person will remain in his/her account and will be able to continue earning badges and such, but he/she will simply not be able to chat or leave comments. If 3 people voted yes and 4 people voted no, then the person who was voted against cannot be voted against for 5 minutes, and the person who initiated the vote cannot initiate another for 10 minutes (the same would hold true even if 7 voted yes and 5 voted no, as “not silencing” should be the pretty strong default, both in terms of general policy and in terms of preventing abuse of the system).

USER MODERATORS

Anyone can become a regular user and vote to silence offensive users in chat, but those willing to go one step further can apply to become user moderators. Only regular users can apply to be user moderators, and there would be a button or something in their profile to do so.

Once someone has applied to become a user moderator, that person’s status will change a bit in chat. He or she might get a little “A” (“applicant”) badge next to his/her name, but that person will NOT have any additional power. That power must be gained through the approval of peers.

The system might be similar to the voting system of silencing users. Other regular users can vote in favor or against that person’s application to become a user moderator. This is done completely anonymously, and the applicant has no knowledge of who or how many people have voted in favor or against his/her application.

Now, an obvious problem arises. People whispering “you vote for me and I’ll vote for you.” This gets down to a basic question of psychology. Obviously a person can’t spam chat asking other users to vote for him/her, because then users will more likely vote AGAINST him/her, especially since it’s so anonymous. So if someone whispers someone else asking for a vote in exchange for giving that person a vote (if they’re both applicants), is the person receiving the whisper likely to vote for or against the soliciting individual? If most people would vote against, this isn’t a problem, since the practice would likely not become common or effective. If more people vote in favor, though, this is (and it also means that people are really trusting!).

Anyway, applicants would need 10 more “yes” votes than “no” votes to become a user moderator. Again, only votes from a regular user would count, and only votes from different IPs. Once the person has crossed this threshold (10 more yes than no) and retained it for an entire week, that user will automatically be promoted to a user moderator. Why a one-week wait? Trolls who scrounge together 10 votes from “regular user” accounts will need to retain that lead for a full week, and their name in chat/comments will indicate that they’re applying for the user moderator position, so everyone else would have plenty of chance to shoot it down.

User moderators will have the power to silence any user on the site for 30 minutes, without requiring a vote from others. However, ONLY users currently in chat can be silenced. Once a user is silenced, a message will pop up: “User moderator A has silenced User B for 30 minutes. Do you agree with this action? Yes/No.” Again, the second part will only be visible to regular users on the site, and only one vote per IP will count. The process here is very similar to regular users silencing, only in reverse. If 3 more users vote “no” than “yes,” the silence will be overturned, and the silenced user will be allowed to speak again. Additionally, the user moderator will not be allowed to silence anyone else for 15 minutes, and the user moderator will receive a “strike.”

Strikes will be compared to the overall bans that the user moderator has made. If the user moderator has at least 5 strikes (something that most will probably acquire eventually if they’re on the site and active enough) AND the total number of strikes makes up at least 30% of silences administered, then that user moderator will automatically have the status revoked entirely, and he/she will return to being a regular user. Additionally, this ex-user moderator will NOT be able to apply for the position again for one full month.

CURRENT/UPCOMING MODERATORS

This all fits in with the manual system of moderation that exists today. Additionally, the above system of strikes and revoked power will ideally be applied to “normal” moderators (I’m pretty happy with the current moderators on the site, though, so I don’t imagine this would apply very often). “Normal” moderators will be able to silence for 1 hour or 1 day, or they’ll be able to ban for 1 week. All of them are appointed by me, though realistically, most of them become moderators after being endorsed by other moderators. I imagine that the above system of users being able to become user moderators WITHOUT moderator attention could be a great stepping stone in being noticed well enough to become a normal moderator.

This, of course, leads to becoming a room owner, the highest tier of moderator on the site. Room owners already exist, but they don’t have much power yet. Soon (long before any type of user-moderation system exists), room owners will be able to appoint room moderators. These room moderators will be able to silence any user IN THAT ROOM for 1 hour. This room moderator tier is comparable to the “user moderator” status (they can silence for longer, but only in one room). The longer silence duration is due to the assumption that room moderators are more familiar with those who frequent the room, and it’s less likely that a regular user on the site will be silenced by a room moderator for merely acting up for a couple of minutes.

Even with user moderation on the site, I question how long a system of me personally appointing normal moderators (then room owners) will scale. I imagine that, with the assistance of user moderators, it has the potential to scale pretty well (though obviously not to infinity), since we don’t really need many room owners in the first place. Some automation to this process might be interesting, but I think that that’s even more distant in the future.

Thoughts?

Great idea. I look forward to seeing it in the future if it happens.

Sounds nice, i hope it works if its needed.

This could get out of hand if people start picking on someone.

Yeah, that’s why we’d need a lot of safeguards to protect people. Ultimately, though, it’s impossible for an automated system to really tell the difference between a user being “picked on” and a user pissing everyone off.

That is amazingly awesome, although it will, of course take a lot of time to be ready. Or as you say, “It will be in our to do list”.

Although another thing I would add is another requiry to become a user moderator. Being a regular user isn’t, of course, hard. By making everyone who are regular users capable to apply to User Moderating will be a bit problematic as a lot of people will get it. Maybe making he requirement for application being at least level 15 and 2 months or something like that. Or making the apply button enabled only after at least 5 people voted for you for “being able to become a user moderator”. That way applying to user moderation would be harder and therefore make only the right people moderators.

since we don’t really need many room owners in the first place.

Right now we don’t. What will happen when there are a lot more people on Kong, and the chats will be very crowded? Of course, new rooms will be needed. And I think Kongregate will grow a lot and in a faster rate (even though it currently grows fast.) and I don’t think I need to remind you we are still in the “Beta” phase.

Anyway, may your dreams become Kongregate’s dreams soon, after the “to do list” will be a bit less full. :)

This is acutally a very good, well thought out idea.

My thoughts: Good idea but…

… despite me being an active and regular user of Kong, I am stuck at “New User” because I don’t go for points or badges?

… a vote system for silencing users would be useful and save me from messaging moderators because of rampant trolls. If a user is silenced by the users then a report should be submitted somewhere notifying the moderators/admins of the user so they can check the system isn’t being abused.

… room moderators should be assigned by the room owner only and be limited to 10 min bans and silencing of users. Again a report of action should be submitted automatically.

something to that effect anyway

despite me being an active and regular user of Kong, I am stuck at “New User” because I don’t go for points or badges?

This is a bit problematic but it does help protecting the system from cheating. If you thnk of a better idea that would still protect us from cheaters – Go ahead and suggest it..

i think it’s a great idea but i think like deadly said a regular user should be have to be “nominated” for user modship by other regular users.

Great idea Greg. I like all the new members but sometimes they get out of hand.

Thumbs up, greg, thumbs up. I especially like the whole silencing idea.

And I do not think, people whispering for votes will become a problem. As you point out, it will only be regular users at level 10+ who will have that ability, and I personally believe that most people who have that kind of level, will be mature enough to vote against the person whispering that, or just plainly ignore it.

I really hope, the Greers will implement this. Screw the card game! XD

Screw the card game!

Noes D:

…As for your post; very complicated, but it might just work! You might also want to implement a way for users under level 10 to become Regular Users, since some people use the chat a lot, but don’t get badges.

This is a bit problematic but it does help protecting the system from cheating. If you thnk of a better idea that would still protect us from cheaters – Go ahead and suggest it..

Yeah, these are my thoughts as well. It’s certainly not perfect, but I can’t think of a better solution myself.

Yeah, these are my thoughts as well. It’s certainly not perfect, but I can’t think of a better solution myself.

You know, I don’t think there will ever be a perfect solution. But this is honestly the best, and closest to perfect solution I have seen yet on Kongregate.

Ant, I feel your pain. Despite being on kong…all the time… I’m only level 12 because I got lazy and stopped going for badges soon after they came out. However, with all the badges out there it wouldn’t be that hard to get up to a level 10 if there was incentive to do so. Could it maybe be a level 10 OR 2 months on the site? Or maybe 2 months with a certain amount of log ins during that time?

>Additionally, only users who have said something in chat within the past minute can be voted to be silenced.

I would up that to at least 3 minutes and maybe 5 minutes. Frequently I, or someone else, will be chatting and gaming and will go more than a minute without saying anything. One minute seems a bit extreme to me. But I think the user voted silencing is a great one. I’d probably increase the 10 seconds to 30 though for the same reasons I would increase the chat time thing. I don’t think it would cause harm for it to be up there for 20 extra seconds and it would give people more time to beat a level or hit pause or come back from the bathroom or something. Most people are multitasking on the site…. well okay, at least I am :P

I like the idea of other users nominating people as user moderators. Just from the number of times I get asked “how do I become a mod” I feel like there would be an insane number of people with ’A’s by their name if users could just click a button to apply. I think there should just be something next to “Add as friend” and “mute” that says “Nominate.” I might even go further than just one person nominating them… I would say 3 nominations without any time period constraints. So like, not 3 within a week but 3 ever. If everyone is an applicant I feel like it is less likely that voting will be totally thought out (there would be a higher chance of the whisper thing happening) and I think people would just be more likely to vote in general. If there were only two As in a room I’d be sure to cast my vote for each of them, but if there were 50 it would get totally overwhelming. So I think the idea of user moderators is a great one—I think it should just be a bit harder to become one.

>These room moderators will be able to silence any user IN THAT ROOM for 1 hour.

>(they can silence for longer, but only in one room).

With the room mods, you mean they can only silence users that are in their appointed room, right? The users would be silenced in all rooms and forums etc correct? So like, room mods from the van can silence anyone that is in the van but the users wouldn’t be able to just hop into another room and start talking again. Also, are you saying that room mods aren’t going to be totally room specific? Like, someone who is appointed as a van mod can still silence someone for an hour if they happen to be in another room?

Overall, I think this sounds totally great. Nice thoughts :D

Yeah, these are my thoughts as well. It’s certainly not perfect, but I can’t think of a better solution myself.

Not perfect, but a great idea!

Hey Alison, I think there might be some confusion about the one-minute thing. I meant that you can only be silenced if you’ve said something within the past minute. In other words, no one can vote to silence a person if that person hasn’t said anything for a full minute.

I agree that the number of people with A’s might get a bit out of hand, but my concern with a nomination system is that people would just spam chat until they could find 3 people to nominate. The solution to this would be to give other users a way to “vote down” someone who’s spamming for nominations, but then you get a system that’s nearly identical to the one I’ve already laid out, post-application. Perhaps everyone qualified (level 10 or beyond) should be an “applicant” by default, so that no visual distinction is necessary. Then if the number of votes are acquired, the person might get a little note in their profile: “At least 10 people have nominated you to become a user moderator. Do you accept? Yes/No” Hmmm, yeah, I’m actually liking that idea a bit more…

And silences made by room moderators will indeed persist across the entire site, yes.

>Hey Alison, I think there might be some confusion about the one-minute thing. I meant that you can only be silenced if you’ve said something within the past minute. In other words, no one can vote to silence a person if that person hasn’t said anything for a full minute.

Ohhh! Well then, right on. That makes total and complete sense.

And yeah, I think the default “applicant” thing more than any sort of nomination. It seems the least likely to cause a lot of spamming in chat because users would have no idea how man votes they still needed. I think either nomination type would end up with tons of self-promoting.

ooo, I like the ideas =D would help keep the chat rooms much nicer and under control in a non-Hitler way.

You could have it so that… to become a user moderator you need a difference of 10 votes between good and bad as well as 1 vote/acceptance from 1 normal moderator? Just an idea.

I think it couldn’t also hurt to tone down the title “User Moderator”, as a lot of people will see “moderator” and remembering their past experience from online games or forums, will recognize it as a hard to get title. These people will jump at the chance to join the ranks of the moderators and possibly do unfair things to get the position. It couldn’t hurt to tone down the title “User Moderator”, and replace it with a softer word such as “Referee” or something even better. If anyone has an idea that we can incorporate games into that, please suggest it. Another flaw is the minimal vote requirement. Ten votes and you’re in? That’ll mean mostly everyone. So with the majority of people as mods… what will become of Kongregate? I think that it would work better to have Room Owners pick a group of “Appointer Moderators” or something to that effect. That’s my main improvement idea for this:

Appointer Mods

I would’ve made a little diagram of this if I had Paint (I’m on a Mac) or if I had Flash (the free trial ran out yesterday).

An exclusive system is the key here. Well, maybe I should use the word “exclusive” loosely. Of the 10,000 expected, maybe about 500 of them should be included in the system. Anyway, though, this system is kind of like a pyramid. At the top, there’s greg, and at the bottom are the regular users. What about this:

-greg

—Room Owners (and possibly normal moderators)

Appointer Moderators (specific to each room, about 5 are chosen. These people would not be known as such, and would be classified as Chat Moderators due to the fact that people would ask too often to become chat moderators)

Chat Moderators (maybe about 5 are chosen per Appointer Mod per two months, this would allow for adaptation to user growth in the system)

Regular Users

My view on silencing is that there should be no set limit on it, but anything above 3 days will automatically notify the next group higher than you along with a transcript of the conversation, and if there is no “I approve/disapprove” clicked within 48 hours, the message goes up to the next group higher.

I’m sorry if it looks like I’m throwing away the entire system. The only problem I really had was how easy it was to become a user mod, and I couldn’t make that fair without editing the entire thing (or, could I? Maybe I went too far)…. well, either way, there’s my ideas.

Once the vote is initiated and regular users start voting, the person will be silenced if the number of people voting “yes” reaches 3 more than the number of people voting “no,” and this 3-person lead remains for a full 10 seconds

Those 10 seconds would only be enough if you had a way of pausing every single game. Since there’s not (YES, I’m looking at you Ether Cannon!), I agree with Alison that the time should be increased to 30, or maybe even 40 seconds.

Other than that, I find it a great idea! What worries me the most is the fact that it looks like a rather large group of friends could easily pick on other users, but we’ll never know if that’s really doable unless the system is implemented!

The only reason I’m reluctant to go much longer than 10 seconds is because I imagine that most silencing will affect those who are spamming chat with obscenities, likely regarding which phallic objects can be consumed by which minorities. Keep in mind that it’s not the VOTING that will only last 10 seconds; it’s the “extra period” AFTER the voting has already been made that will last 10 seconds. So if a vote is initiated and after 10 seconds there are 3 who want to silence and 1 who opposes, the voting will continue until 1 more votes in favor (assuming no more oppose). THEN the 10 seconds would begin, to give anyone who objects one “final chance” to vote. I imagine that most voting would last somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 seconds (20 seconds to get 3 more in favor than opposed, then 10 seconds to let it be finalized). Keep in mind that this would all be going on while the offending person has the freedom to spam chat with whatever thoughts might be on his mind regarding African Americans, homosexuals and the rich Jewish culture.

I like ExtremePopcorn’s idea that user moderators be called referees, or something of that nature. I agree with his reasons, too.

I’m not so sure I agree with the concern about “too many” people having this power, though. If every single person on the site behaved incredibly well all the time, I don’t see the harm in everyone having power (it wouldn’t have to be used anyway, though, right?). My only concern is the power being given to those who would abuse it, or the system being unable to take the power away from someone who’s started to abuse it.

So if someone gets 10 more approval votes than disapproval ones (hmmm, maybe votes to silence should also count as votes against being appointed as a user moderator?), is this person likely to abuse the power? If so, and this person silences 5 people who didn’t deserve it (and the action is overturned by others in the room), then this person will lose the power and be unable to apply for it again for a full month. I’d like to think more about these kinds of safety nets than about making sure the number of user moderators is limited, personally.

The concept of appointer moderators is something I’ve been kicking around in my head, also. But ultimately I think it’s pretty unnecessary, since EVERY current moderator is unofficially an appointer moderator. They just need to mention someone’s name on our moderator forums, let some discussion unfold regarding this person’s qualification, then give me a bit of time to skim through that person’s comments/chat history. (Realistically, most of the moderators appointed recently were done so at the request of another moderator rather than because of my personal experience with the person.)

This sounds like a great plan. Are we going to start the voting systems anytime soon?

It’s very unlikely that anything being discussed right now (aside from room owners appointing room-specific moderators) will take effect anytime soon.

Here is a slight problem greg: In any given chat, even if you talk about everything you could possibly hope to stir up conversation, you would be lucky, in some chats, to get more than 4 people talking. Which is kind of hard on the voting system. Plus not many people are level 10+, but W/E.

I agree with the idea for an automated report of all silencings, but here is another nice idea: Along with strikes, give room mods… Hmm.. I don’t know what to call it. Brownie points, for now. Every sucessful silence AND approving vote by people (so that it doesn’t favor rooms with tons of spammers to be blocked, but also doesn’t favor the nice rooms with hundreds of people) you will get a brownie point. If your brownie point to strike ratio is at least 5 to 1 (or 4 to 1, that makes it an even 80% good sliences), and you have at least 10 or 15 brownie points, you get automatically a submission as a “really totally good guy”(work on the name) to Greg and can be considered as a potential normal mod.

Feel free to tweak the idea.

Also, don’t set the stats in stone in your mind people(or Greg), as the site grows it may have to increase the stats because of more people, or decrease the requirements because the people are spread out more and/or we were getting too many mods.