Chat Exclusion Feature

[Hikarikaze]

Most of you that visit the chat should or must know by now that there's a karma system and with it, a feature to exclude a person and initiate a voting process where the majority of the chat has to contribute to the amount of karma needed in order to deal with the excluded person. The exclusion feature was added for the purpose of self-moderation when there's no staff around so that rulebreakers can be dealt with in the absence of staff members. It's also known that to initiate a vote, a reason must be included to justify the vote.

Like virtually every feature, this does have downsides and is open to abuse. For example, a majority of the time, no proper reason is ever given when initiating an exclusion vote. While this is disallowed and staff members can take action against people who do input an invalid reason, this still nonetheless happens. In rare and extreme cases, witch hunting can even happen where one person may be targeted and can be excluded by a mass amount of people. This does happen though like I said, this is rare.

"What's your problem with the system?" you may ask

As someone who's been on the receiving end of abuse of this feature before, my main issue is that this system is far too abused and used outside its intended use. Time in and time out, many different individuals that come on the chat proves constantly that this is the case. It's also made clear that self-moderation is a clear failure and that users can't be trusted with it.

"Sounds like you just want it gone because someone tried to vote you out"

If I never had been voted to be excluded before, I would still advocate for the removal of the system. I don't need it to happen to me to see and understand that this happens to other people

"So what do you want?"

Remove it. It's been weeks and months that this has been happening. Staff banning and muting people for improperly using the system isn't enough because there are barely any signs of people feeling discouraged to use the system improperly for their own use. If one person gets muted, another one will simply do the same. It'll save the staff time and energy if the feature was just gone. They won't have to keep banning people for using the system improperly because there will be no system.

"Isn't there another way?"

Yes, there is. You can take away the right to exclude for certain people but again, this is open to abuse. For example, if person A no longer has the right to exclude, then person B can possibly exclude person A while A can't do anything about it. A no longer possesses any power to do anything about it so what happens in the end? Person A gets the receiving end of the abuse. If some individuals retain power like this while others no longer have it, then what difference is there between them and the staff in terms of moderation capability? Furthermore the algorithm as to how much total KP is needed to exclude someone would need to be changed to accommodate for the amount of people that still retain this ability rather than the ability of people in the chat overall.

"But removing the feature means rulebreakers can roam freely and do whatever"

Yes it does, but that doesn't mean people can't report them. Action may take a while compared to the near instantaneous reaction time of active chat users that possess the ability to exclude, but sacrifices have to be made. In order to get something, you must lose something. This same logic applies here. Loss of power for more peace and neutrality in the chat. No more witch hunting or unnecessary exertion of power over others as people freely wish.

I'd like to conclude with one final question. If the enemies list can get removed for being used far too much outside its intended use in a matter of days, then why can't the chat exclusion feature be removed for the same thing?

[gajacar25]

I agree entirely, I've been on the receiving end of the exclusion vote plenty of times, the system is broken. Usually to exclude someone who's breaking rules it takes too much karma, and because of the tendency for people to dog-pile on someone they dislike more than someone who breaks rules and they like, there's a higher chance for someone to get muted for 18 hours because 'I don't like you!"
Either remove the system, or try and create a new one, which functions better. All systems have their flaws, this one is just particularly flawed. Removing it is the simplest answer, then you have other options.
There could be a system implemented where staff members can make someone a temporary moderator while they are offline, or something like that. I've nothing on my mind at the moment, but I'm certain there are ways to make user moderation a functioning system.
+1.

Final note: I can't believe that the enemies system was actually removed, that is beyond stupid.

[Kazy]

To be honest, i'd remove user moderation at all.
It never worked in the past and the majority of user couldn't be trusted with the responsibility.

I suggest going back to old procedures such as reporting people and blocking them with the 'ignore feature' if they spam around or whatnot.
But actually follow a template for once instead of reporting people without screenshots or any other kind of proof.

[Hikarikaze]

Usually to exclude someone who's breaking rules it takes too much karma

It's designed so that you need the majority of the chat to vote someone out. The only problem is that barely a few people actually contribute karma and the exclusion process remains incomplete. People aren't encouraged to vote someone out which just undermines the entire system. Maybe if there was an end benefit to voting someone out, then people will start to vote out more since it's natural to try to obtain rewards, especially guaranteed ones or those that look guaranteed. Unfortunately, even with basic rewards however, like 5 karma per 5 successful exclusions for example, abuse will still happen so there really is no way around

To be honest, i'd remove user moderation at all.
It never worked in the past and the majority of user couldn't be trusted with the responsibility.

I suggest going back to old procedures such as reporting people and blocking them with the 'ignore feature' if they spam around or whatnot.
But actually follow a template for once instead of reporting people without screenshots or any other kind of proof.

It'd be pointless to say I agree since I implied it already in my main post but this could work. Almost every case where users have obtained some sort of power (gamemasters for example), it has been abused countless times. This applies to any sort of power from karma to GMs to even something basic like reporting. People simply can't be trusted and I have no idea why another chance at this sort of thing was even given despite these past examples

Also we both know that barely anyone will follow a template for reporting. It's more convenient to post a screenshot with no explanation since it requires little effort and brain cells. I mean, people don't even follow map and ban appeal templates

Hey, look, a staff member says user moderation should go away. Well, I don't see DOOMWRATH responsible for his moderation, and he's admin.

I'm not really interested in your personal issues with the staff and I'm definitely not a mod but this is my topic after all so I suggest you contribute something that's actually relevant. This is about user moderation and not staff moderation nor is it about your personal problems and grudges that you hold against the staff

[Dariy]

I don't see how this whole karma thing works exactly, but I think it's just unnecessary and the old way of the chat was better.

[Kazy]

Hey, look, a staff member says user moderation should go away. Well, I don't see DOOMWRATH responsible for his moderation, and he's admin.

May want to keep your stuff ontopic next time :)

[Green Eyed Demon]

This is what happens when you trust a community that's(not even going to continue this,add whatever you want here,you know exactly what I mean) with power

[maxim12]

I don't like that karma system neither.
Even though I use the chat very rarely.

[MI6 AGENT 007]

I think its just best to not give any user some time of power PERIOD. I rather go back to the old mute system back in the old chat. Besides nobody isnt using even if a person did break the rules. So its best to just stick with the old system from here and out.

[Hikarikaze]

I don't see how this whole karma thing works exactly, but I think it's just unnecessary and the old way of the chat was better.

It was very simple once you understood the basics. When karma was just introduced, the system was designed so that newly made accounts or accounts that join for the first time would have to wait until they received 10 karma in order to send messages from the account. This meant that ban evaders couldn't immediately talk nor could someone bring an alt and cause trouble. However, the main issue was that the wait time to get 10 karma was too much and thus was also an inconvenience since a simple basic capability was locked behind a time wall.

Self-moderation existed in that iteration of the system too but there was no majority decision. People could directly decrease other people's karma at the expense of their own. If I for example decreased 10 karma from another person, both of us would lose 10 karma. The maximum karma was locked to 15 to try to prevent this from happening too much and so only 5 karma can be decreased. Abuse happened of course but then the chat took a different route and adopted the current system we have now

When you say old way of the chat, what do you mean? Do you mean the chat before we had karma or a system before this current one?

This is what happens when you trust a community that's(not even going to continue this,add whatever you want here,you know exactly what I mean) with power

Common sense even points this out and yet still this happens. I don't understand why this was even a good idea to begin with when history already showed what would happen

I don't like that karma system neither.
Even though I use the chat very rarely.

This isn't about the karma system but more specifically, the chat exclusion feature

If you've rarely used the chat, then how can you formulate a proper opinion on any feature in it? I think you need to use the chat more to build a more in-depth insight for this topic

I think its just best to not give any user some time of power PERIOD. I rather go back to the old mute system back in the old chat. Besides nobody isnt using even if a person did break the rules. So its best to just stick with the old system from here and out.

I'm seeing quite a bit of posts saying that we should "revert back to the old system" but little to no explanation as to why or which system. Again, what old system are we referring to? The karma system before this or the chat where karma never existed? Why should we revert back? What benefits does this "old system" have over the current system?

Removing it would definitely solve the problem but I also do think this system can be improved but if nobody except for gaja offers an alternative to the solution that I've originally proposed, then to be fair, 99% of the posts here are essentially useless since they're just repeats of the same thing and barely offer any contribution. An opinion alone won't solve the issue here

[Kazy]

As said, best system is to leave the modding part just for the Staff and give the Users the responsibility back to report rulebreaks.
That's worked the best in the past if you keep the stuff with BoZ and abuse mods. out of the case, but the team is good how it is now as from i can see.

[gajacar25]

What I said is only an example of SOMETHING that can be done, doesn't mean it'll work. I feel like removing it would be for the better, mostly because as dems said, this community just can't be trusted with any power. Personally, I would love for there to be user moderation, I've said before that there's times when no one on the staff is online and other users who would be willing are. However, most of them I doubt can be trusted with moderating the chat, especially since a few of them have abused the exclusion system.

My conclusion is that removing it would be for the best, because over a few days I still can't think of a way to make it function well enough to be accepted.

Final note: If you haven't been on the chat or don't use it, don't reply to here.

[Turtothian]

Chat exclusion should just be a trap for newbies.

A newbie wants to exclude a big boi and it says "u cant kick the big bois herrre"

Newbie gets triggered.

[tehswordninja]

Wish it had never been a thing from the start myself.

When it first was a thing, you could take any amount of karma from anyone, without lowering yours. The fact that this was possible and wasn't held back from the chat until further reviewed/improved upon really astounded me.
Thankfully that ended relatively soon, but overall right up until the current system, there was a lot of abuse of the system.

At this rate, whats left should go. Vote kicks rarely ever go through, the amount of karma needed, even with the whole chat trying to kick someone, is far too high. And I don't see any reason for karma to go up to 100, either.

All in all, I agree fully with this. I've never been much of a fan of the system from the start.

[artichokecat]

I never see the karma system see much use anyway.
If it goes I'm fine.
I like having a counter for how active people are on chat though.

[Incompetence]

everything against the system has already been said so i won't repeat it like 90% of the ppl here but i do agree with the removal idea. I dont think making any changes would do much since there's still a good chance of abuse as with all other features

Note to everyone: read the title first, the chat exclusion feature is not the karma system

[Hikarikaze]

First of all, I'd like to point out that I'm glad this is getting traction, even if not as fast as other issues have been receiving support, because this system has existed for far too long in its current iteration and in light of recent events regarding the enemies list, it was only fair that this issue was also brought up in the same time frame as the enemies list issue. However, I don't want this feature to removed simply because I alone don't like it; I want it to be removed by a majority's decision with any ad populum argument having as little as a presence as possible. A feature should only be removed or changed if we, as a community, reach the same consensus, not certain individuals that claim to represent the majority. After all, the community is the one that gets affected the most by any feature introduced for us

---

As said, best system is to leave the modding part just for the Staff and give the Users the responsibility back to report rulebreaks.
That's worked the best in the past if you keep the stuff with BoZ and abuse mods. out of the case, but the team is good how it is now as from i can see.

As much as I would like this to happen in replacement should the system does get removed, my only concern would be that this method would be underused. I don't have problems with the staff team at the moment so far and I think this current team is decent (even though it could be better but at least it's not worse), but the main problem here is lack of communication between users and the staff, which is what reporting requires in order for anything to get done. Anything that requires an action by a staff to be done requires communication and I feel there's not enough. The communication that does occur is often obscure and unclear, which leans more towards lack of proper communication.

What I personally think is the cause of this is how the staff team is portrayed to the majority. I see the staff as representatives but others may find the team untrustworthy and even hostile, either to the individual or to the whole community. People like this would hesitate to even approach anyone in the staff because of this kind of negative perception and if anyone knows how rumors and opinions work, the two can reach places at frightening distances and speeds. It's a matter of established communication and how well established it is. The BoZ mods and the abusive share of mods are important because they're precedents. The actions done by them have hurt the image of the staff team to me, which some people feel haven't improved because of potential concern that this precedent may in fact repeat itself. As long as that perception exists and the chance is likely to occur, this method will definitely lead to almost nowhere. There'll be almost no communication between the staff and the users. You'd need to do something to rekindle the trust that users have to the staff and that alone is an arduous task

What I said is only an example of SOMETHING that can be done, doesn't mean it'll work. I feel like removing it would be for the better, mostly because as dems said, this community just can't be trusted with any power. Personally, I would love for there to be user moderation, I've said before that there's times when no one on the staff is online and other users who would be willing are. However, most of them I doubt can be trusted with moderating the chat, especially since a few of them have abused the exclusion system.

My conclusion is that removing it would be for the best, because over a few days I still can't think of a way to make it function well enough to be accepted.

Final note: If you haven't been on the chat or don't use it, don't reply to here.

As much as this system is flawed, I do think an improvement could be made even if the system will still be abused. I understand that Eric designed this system with good intent and for a reason but I feel he simply deployed the system to the wrong demographic. A lot of people that come here are children; most of which still haven't developed a proper sense of morality. Power trips may be fun and edgy to some people but in reality, it hurts innocent users as well on a large scale because the capability to even use the chat is on the line.

If we're going to make changes, we need to outline some conclusions made from the way the system worked before and now, and start from there. I made a few just to start off:

• People simply cannot be trusted with power, regardless of how basic this power is. Abuse comes from the open access of power to all and every individual that accesses the chat, including those with benevolent and especially malicious intent
• The vote is majority based yet there is no incentive to participate, thus no encouragement to vote
• Restrictions placed on certain individuals would create division more than it would alleviate the issue

I made a few basic ideas before I started making this post and felt I should post them here. These are ideas so of course, they will be flawed and imperfect. Since they're flawed, I'll even explain as to why and how they're flawed to really force you to think and consider about these ideas

• Incentivize participation in vote exclusions so people are encouraged more to vote for an exclusion. It would be a fixed rate, e.g 5 karma for every 5 successful exclusions or 10 for every 10 exclusions, etc. The only main issue is that people can simply vote out alternate accounts and farm karma this way, which hopefully the next idea can minimize
• Make votes IP based so only one account per IP can vote. All other accounts linked on the same IP will be unable to vote regardless of karma level. This is only bad if someone, like me for example, has a dynamic IP where their IP changes frequently, or if someone uses a VPN. People with those capabilities can use their alts more freely to cause bias in voting than those with static IPs or those without a VPN. Most VPN IPs are banned, indeed, but that's only most. Some IPs still do work. This flaw is exactly why I wrote that it would minimize the previous issue
• Add a possible filter that, if an invalid reason is entered, will prevent an exclusion vote from being initiated. If someone tries to enter a reason that's blocked or disallowed, the vote will not start until an acceptable reason is entered. People will try to lie and falsely validate exclusions this way, which results in the debate of what defines a truly valid exclusion from an invalid one. Since you can't see the true intent behind the falsely stated intention, there is no way to verify whether the entered reason is legitimate or not. This issue can be solved with surrounding context but reasons are mainly opinion based, so if something may offend one person and they start a vote, there is no set definition or guideline that can be used to counter the opinion of the person starting the vote

About the final note too, I agree. This is an issue that requires research and built upon insight to actually create an opinion on. I reckon most people who have never entered the chat can create a perspective by reading the posts here now though since there's enough content to catch someone up to speed, which is good. I want as many opinions as possible and I don't want certain people to be excluded from the representation of the overall community. It's fair that they deserve a chance to enter this discussion as well

Chat exclusion should just be a trap for newbies.

A newbie wants to exclude a big boi and it says "u cant kick the big bois herrre"

Newbie gets triggered.

This could work lol

Wish it had never been a thing from the start myself.

When it first was a thing, you could take any amount of karma from anyone, without lowering yours. The fact that this was possible and wasn't held back from the chat until further reviewed/improved upon really astounded me.
Thankfully that ended relatively soon, but overall right up until the current system, there was a lot of abuse of the system.

At this rate, whats left should go. Vote kicks rarely ever go through, the amount of karma needed, even with the whole chat trying to kick someone, is far too high. And I don't see any reason for karma to go up to 100, either.

All in all, I agree fully with this. I've never been much of a fan of the system from the start.

The amount of work that's gone into refining the system into the way it is now plus the fact the moderation system is still present shows that Eric wants the idea to still be in the chat or is at least in favor of it.

I'll admit that the system is designed fairly decently, but it's the users that are the main problem. For its intended purpose, the exclusion system has potential to work successfully but as previously mentioned, so many factors prevent this from happening. Some can be changed while some just happen to be innate and impossible to change. If the system is supposed to stay, then it should be improved so the problems listed here are at least minimized if not taken care of. Removing the whole thing does work out the best in the end, but alternatives do exist. It may be possible that an alternative is favored over removing the system, but this can only happen if those alternatives are explored

I never see the karma system see much use anyway.
If it goes I'm fine.
I like having a counter for how active people are on chat though.

The karma system isn't so much the issue as much as the chat exclusion feature is. The karma system and chat exclusion feature aren't the same thing; exclusions are a component of the karma system

I'll assume that you're in favor with the general idea at least, which I find to be a good thing

everything against the system has already been said so i won't repeat it like 90% of the ppl here but i do agree with the removal idea. I dont think making any changes would do much since there's still a good chance of abuse as with all other features

Note to everyone: read the title first, the chat exclusion feature is not the karma system

I'm glad you included this note, since it's very well needed here

I agree that changes won't do much but it's worth exploring. We as a community may even find a better solution than outright removing the system but of course, if the general consensus is to remove the system, then so be it. I won't contest that decision and will in fact support it

[gajacar25]

This is a very sad state of affairs, how little opinions this post is getting.
This post DESERVES attention, its an important issue, and unlike something trivial such as the enemies list, happens often. I would beg of all of you to link this post to anyone who can support it and form an opinion on it.
As well, I'd love it if you'd talk about the exclusion system, not karma.

[KARL SERG]

I haven't used the Chat for months. Theoretically, I think it is better to have People take care of their own affairs if no authority is present than let rule breakers roam free.

Practically, since I haven't used the chat for a long time, I am not entitled to have an Opinion about this. I don't like the idea of People posting harmful links without the staff around, but, by what I can understand, if there was a gang of rule breakers they could just form a Coalition and stay around posting what they want. So, therefore, I lean towards supporting this Idea since the advantages and disadvantages are not too great in either way, it has popular support and I have nothing against it.

I agree with this.

[Green Eyed Demon]

I see this topic is getting a well deserved attention

Sad