[sldev] Re: SLDev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 13

[Random Unsung]

Re: "Which is why I'm proposing a quick-reacting review team that will detect such abuse, put the listing back up, whitelist it against further abuse, and punish the abusers. Such as removing their tagging privileges for N months."

No. I'm absolutely dead set against any kind of moving of the awful forums culture inworld.

No policing of inworld content by other residents. We cannot have a system where one set of residents are pitted against another, policing their content. Absolutely unacceptable.

The existing abuse report system should be used for content of concern, and Lindens should improve or staff up this system if policing of inworld continent becomes their priority.

Don't use residents for this function. 

Prokofy Neva






sldev-request at lists.secondlife.com wrote: Send SLDev mailing list submissions to
 sldev at lists.secondlife.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 /index.html
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 sldev-request at lists.secondlife.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
 sldev-owner at lists.secondlife.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of SLDev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. RE: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Callum Lerwick)
   2. Re: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Argent Stonecutter)
   3. RE: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Matthew Dowd)
   4. RE: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Matthew Dowd)
   5. RE: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Callum Lerwick)
   6. RE: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Callum Lerwick)
   7. Re: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Callum Lerwick)
   8. Re: Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging ! (Argent Stonecutter)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 14:38:17 -0500
From: Callum Lerwick 
Subject: RE: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: sldev at lists.secondlife.com
Message-ID: <1209843497.12336.73.camel at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 21:44 +0000, Matthew Dowd wrote:
> > If it gets more than X flags, then it gets
> > automatically taken down, and it still goes to a human review team.
>  
> All you need is a co-ordinated group of X+1 people determined to
> remove say anyone selling sculpties (or a more realistic prejudice),
> for them to at least temporarily get sites removed. Effectively, such
> an approach is a "guilty until proven innocent" one.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm considering. Which is why I'm proposing a
quick-reacting review team that will detect such abuse, put the listing
back up, whitelist it against further abuse, and punish the abusers.
Such as removing their tagging privileges for N months.

If you have a better idea, feel free to propose it. "x sucks" is not
productive. "x sucks, how about y instead?" is productive.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/e3f1e99a/attachment-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:10:55 -0500
From: Argent Stonecutter 
Subject: Re: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: SL-Dev Mailing List 
Message-ID: <303D8338-5ADE-4290-9AE2-E8C19828A445 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On 2008-05-03, at 14:38, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> If you have a better idea, feel free to propose it. "x sucks" is not
> productive. "x sucks, how about y instead?" is productive.

Well, I proposed my alternative. But what the hell, how about another?

* Nothing is banned automatically.
* Flagged posts are handled in order of some function based on how  
old they are and how many flags there are and what type there are.  
For example, spam flags get an exponential function of the number of  
flags, say 0.1 * 2^N.
* If something is obviously being flagged falsely, the IP address of  
the all flaggers are put on a silent blacklist for one day, and all  
flags from these address are silently voided.
* The length of the blacklist is increased each time it's invoked.



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 20:48:52 +0000
From: Matthew Dowd 
Subject: RE: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: Callum Lerwick , 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

 > If you have a better idea, feel free to propose it. "x sucks" is not> productive. "x sucks, how about y instead?" is productive.
I did a few posts back but to expand a little:
 
i) use Google SafeFilter for filtering out mature content in addition to the mature tag
ii) work on various projects such as the landmark project to improve relevancy ranking (perhaps consider social tagging) thus pushing spam down in rank
iii) use the existing AR process for prohibited listings (consider adding an AR button to search results)
iv) adding a button for recommending content to the showcase (perhaps only allow one recommendation per day, restrict to PIOF accounts and/or add some token L$ fee to cut down abuse).
 
Matthew
_________________________________________________________________
Be a Hero and Win with Iron Man
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/bea7c394/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 20:52:58 +0000
From: Matthew Dowd 
Subject: RE: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: Callum Lerwick , 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> punish the abusers. Such as removing their tagging privileges for N months.
This needs to be done with care - a false report may be a genuine mistake - believing the gambling ban applies to free to pay casinos which don't give prizes, thinking the "no age play" blogs outlaw child avatars etc.
 
Overall, the amount of manual work to deal with the system proposed doesn't sound much less (and possibly more) than the amount to deal with a traditional AR - hence my suggest to stick with the current AR process!
 
Matthew
_________________________________________________________________

Discover and Win with Live Search

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000007ukm/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/e9657bff/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 18:13:29 -0500
From: Callum Lerwick 
Subject: RE: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: sldev at lists.secondlife.com
Message-ID: <1209856410.12336.84.camel at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 20:52 +0000, Matthew Dowd wrote:
> > punish the abusers. Such as removing their tagging privileges for N
> months.
> 
> This needs to be done with care - a false report may be a genuine
> mistake - believing the gambling ban applies to free to pay casinos
> which don't give prizes, thinking the "no age play" blogs outlaw child
> avatars etc.

Yes, which is why I'm insisting the decision be made by a human being,
with a user's past behavior taken in to account. A written warning can
be made first, with a three strikes and you're out policy, whatever. I
was being deliberately vague about the details of punishment because it
is orthogonal to my proposed workflow.

> Overall, the amount of manual work to deal with the system proposed
> doesn't sound much less (and possibly more) than the amount to deal
> with a traditional AR - hence my suggest to stick with the current AR
> process!

My main point is once a listing is reviewed and a decision of its
legitimacy is made, that decision stands. No more flaggings/ARs are
allowed, preventing an endless fight over a single listing.

And the idea is that the review team is well familiar enough with the
minute detail of what is against the rules and what isn't, that these
decisions can be made quickly.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/5d274bba/attachment-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 18:21:02 -0500
From: Callum Lerwick 
Subject: RE: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: sldev at lists.secondlife.com
Message-ID: <1209856862.12336.92.camel at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 20:48 +0000, Matthew Dowd wrote:
> i) use Google SafeFilter for filtering out mature content in addition
> to the mature tag

Any automated system, even Google's, can and will be gamed by determined
human beings. Requiring humans to be in the loop to counter such
behavior *anyway*.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/5b752692/attachment-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 18:49:16 -0500
From: Callum Lerwick 
Subject: Re: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: sldev at lists.secondlife.com
Message-ID: <1209858556.12336.112.camel at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 15:10 -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> Well, I proposed my alternative. But what the hell, how about another?
> 
> * Nothing is banned automatically.

Well fine, if everyone is so determined that any automatic takedown is
evil, then N = infinity. I don't particularly care. My proposed workflow
still stands.

> * Flagged posts are handled in order of some function based on how  
> old they are and how many flags there are and what type there are.  
> For example, spam flags get an exponential function of the number of  
> flags, say 0.1 * 2^N.

Or you could just sort based on number of flaggings. Why does it need to
be so complex? An item should never be on the review queue for more than
T amount of time anyway, making the sort order a mostly inconsequential
detail and we are splitting hairs at this point.

> * If something is obviously being flagged falsely, the IP address of  
> the all flaggers are put on a silent blacklist for one day, and all  
> flags from these address are silently voided.
> * The length of the blacklist is increased each time it's invoked.

These don't contradict anything I've said. The details of punishment are
orthogonal to the workflow, it is to me a well covered and thus
un-interesting problem space.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/417c5e3f/attachment-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 19:06:46 -0500
From: Argent Stonecutter 
Subject: Re: [sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !
To: SL-Dev Mailing List 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On 2008-05-03, at 18:49, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>> * Flagged posts are handled in order of some function based on how
>> old they are and how many flags there are and what type there are.
>> For example, spam flags get an exponential function of the number of
>> flags, say 0.1 * 2^N.
>
> Or you could just sort based on number of flaggings.

I'm assuming limited resources at Linden Labs, so I'm not assuming  
that they will EVER get to all flaggings. That is, this is triage.

The function used would be Linden Labs' business, and tuned to fit  
the workload.

> Why does it need to be so complex?

It doesn't need to be any more complex than Linden Labs chooses to  
make it, but it's quite likely that it will be simpler to use a more  
complex function... for example, if it's easy to report spam then  
there's some small number below which you should completely ignore  
spam reports, because spam is a function of volume.

>> * If something is obviously being flagged falsely, the IP address of
>> the all flaggers are put on a silent blacklist for one day, and all
>> flags from these address are silently voided.
>> * The length of the blacklist is increased each time it's invoked.
>
> These don't contradict anything I've said. The details of  
> punishment are
> orthogonal to the workflow, it is to me a well covered and thus
> un-interesting problem space.

This is not "punishment", because it's silent, there's no feedback to  
the person that their flagging has been ignored. This is part of the  
triage, eliminating known sources of bad information allowing them to  
more easily locate items that are likely to need response.



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
SLDev mailing list
SLDev at lists.secondlife.com
/index.html


End of SLDev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 13
*************************************


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080503/318d951d/attachment-0001.htm