Auto-Approve Descriptions

[elynne]

Compiling the lists for content filters will take a lot of work. And so will plowing through the current backlog of descriptions. Either way, the -least- of what is obviously, desperately needed right now is more mods.

[~!~]

I concur. With enough mods, odds are somebody will have nothing to do tonight and crank through some descriptions. Plus, you don't need to be super-ultra-trustworthy to just review descriptions. There could even be a subcategory of mods who only have to do that.

[KageSora]

What we probably need, to deal with the backlog, is a mutli-level fix (even if it'd only be temporary).

 

We need more mods, even if their only power is to approve/reject descriptions. We also need a way to clear out the back-log. Getting a filter for blocked and questionable words compiled would take a lot of effort, but we could probably do it if members of the community pitched in to determine what should be banned or questionable. Then an auto-approving/rejecting system with a report button could maybe be implemented while ideas are discussed on how to overhaul the system so we don't need the auto-approve but we won't get the backlog we have now?

 

 

That might hep with the backlog and keep it from happening again or getting worse while a proper overhaul of the system was worked out...

[Obscure_Trash]

I concur.  With enough mods, odds are somebody will have nothing to do tonight and crank through some descriptions.  Plus, you don't need to be super-ultra-trustworthy to just review descriptions.  There could even be a subcategory of mods who only have to do that.

We do this already. The problem is the sheer number of users writing descriptions, which will always outnumber mods/description mods. 100+ gets added overnight for me most of the time, even when I don't sleep the full time I should, and it takes a scarily short amount of time for this to rack up to 1000 more. So even just sitting down to do 100 every night doesn't do much to solve the background. And yes, having more people will help slowly eat through the backlog, yet...

 

I would love more mods, but they will only help, not be able to fix the problem. :3

Edited September 28, 2011 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Shanthaia]

If dragon rape is against the guidelines, is it against the rules to have the dragon passively associated with it rather than actively? (Like, "the dragon was raped in the past" versus "this dragon rapes other dragons.")

don't forget that rape is also a plant...a pretty nicely smelling plant that comes in fields

 

like /random piccie from google): http://members.aon.at/mlocker/data/kundend...im_rapsfeld.jpg

 

So is it accpatable to have a dragond that loves taking strolls though rape fields or does that have to be blocked because of the double meaning of that word?

 

And I am sure we gonna have some more problems like that if strikt filters are applied - so I am still nto sure if a filtered autoapprove is a good solution.

 

 

 

[elynne]

I honestly think that the number of times the word would be used in that context is vanishingly small compared to the times it would be used in the other, and that yes, that would be an acceptable risk to take. At the least, that word should be keyed to automatically trigger a mod review before the description can be posted.

 

So the sequence goes like this:

 

Write a description, submit it.

* Obviously naughty word detected (~forum censored words~, etcetera): submission automatically declined, with a warning, and ability to submit descriptions is turned off for a week. If it is the second time, description submission turned off for a month; if the third time, description submissions disabled for that scroll.

* Problematic word or phrase detected (rape, "forced breeding," money, click my egg/s, hi--list compiled by collaboration between mods and community): submission is not posted, but is sent to mod-approval queue for review.

* No naughty or problematic words or phrases detected: submission is posted to scroll in a space below the breed description, obviously separated in an area called "Additional Notes", with a tag saying something like "(Submission not approved by moderators)" next to a "report" button.

 

If somebody uses the "report" button, the description vanishes from the scroll and is sent to the review queue.

 

Yes, this completely ignores grammar and silly descriptions, like "this is a cat! meow!" And yes, it completely ignores the possibility of abuse in other ways, such as somebody clicking "report" on every description on the scroll of somebody they don't like.

 

HOWEVER. As has been stated multiple times, including by mods, the current system DOES NOT WORK. This is intended to be pretty much just a Band-Aid, a temporary solution at best, while something more long-term is worked out, to keep things active and moving. But on the other hand, why not give it a try for a while and see if it works? If it reduces the amount of work the mods have to put into the system, if it approves descriptions faster, if it isn't abused as much as y'all are afraid it will be--why not?

Edited September 28, 2011 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Nine]

Really don't like the idea of strict censorship and word filters in descriptions. Especially the idea of being unable to submit descriptions as punishment for what may be a mistake, misunderstanding, or legitimate use for words =(

 

I honestly believe things like that would make people more afraid to submit descriptions and would stifle creativity =S I know I'd be afraid to even attempt to submit a description if I felt it could be found offensive somehow and blocked from submitting. While a new method of accepting descriptions may be needed for the long haul, I think the safest bet the DC community has for right now is description mods and a report button.

[KageSora]

I think that a ban-list would have to be reserved for words for which there really is no decent use, such as, say, a certain slang term for a certain part of female anatomy.

 

Everything else, well, that would need to be discussed very thoroughly to ensure that words with double meanings were on a 'look at' list not a 'insta-reject' list.

 

And how would it be handled if something was part of another word/name? I've seen forums block out the center of certain words/names because they contain bad words.

 

I mean, people could get around the filter by stringing several bad words together, but at the same time if somebody named their dragon "Ashitaka", it'd be a shame for them to get busted for the middle of the name they used in the description...

 

 

 

Perhaps there could be three lists--one for banned words (like that one I used for an example at first), one for "words that are very probably being misused but might possibly be part of another word or used in an appropriate context" (Ashitaka as a name, for example, or the rape example from earlier) (unless it'd be possible to filter out words that are part of other words, but then somebody could put "lolIeat[inappropriate word]" to get around that...), and one "Could be easily misused, but also has some semi-common legitimate uses"?

 

 

Banned words would get you busted right away--you'd be banned from descriptions, it wouldn't show, all that stuff. Words on the 'very likely to be bad' list would go into a queue for review, and words on the 'might be bad might not' list would go into a separate queue. Or maybe words on the 'very likely to be bad' list would put you higher up in line for review than words on the 'might be bad or maybe not' list.

[savorysaige]

Well the site already keeps track of an individual user's "voting power."

 

When a user's vote agrees with the mods, they gain voting power, otherwise they lose voting power. This is used to modify how much weight a user's vote carries when approving descriptions, which helps the mods figure out which descriptions are likely to be approved or rejected.

 

That said, if user votes were able to approve a description, there would be no way to increase or decrease voting power since there are no mods to agree with. Unless the system of mod approving is also kept.

That's quite interesting. What about this- to ease the burden on the moderaters, if a user's 'voting power' reaches a certain level, perhaps they could be offered the chance to be able to approve descriptions?

[Stealthypugs]

That's quite interesting. What about this- to ease the burden on the moderaters, if a user's 'voting power' reaches a certain level, perhaps they could be offered the chance to be able to approve descriptions?

I like that idea. That's not auto-approval (which I'm not fond of), and still has something for user's votes to be compared to so their voting power can increase.

[elynne]

Especially the idea of being unable to submit descriptions as punishment for what may be a mistake, misunderstanding, or legitimate use for words =(

I think that a ban-list would have to be reserved for words for which there really is no decent use, such as, say, a certain slang term for a certain part of female anatomy.

 

Exactly this. Also, the first offense would not be a permanent ban; the first offense would be a temporary ban with a very clear explanation, and heck, throw in a way to contact the moderators in case it is a legitimate misunderstanding; but I'm pretty sure that George Carlin's "seven words you absolutely cannot say on television," for example, would all qualify, as well as a whole bunch of more technical words that have one very clear meaning (p0rn0graphy mostly), and no other legitimate meanings at all. It's not something that anybody would be unclear on.

 

Also, the word censor would -not- get these words if they were part of a name, or part of another word. That would be making a huge ASSumption! (get it? lol)

 

It doesn't seem to me like there needs to be three lists. One insta-reject list, with explanation and possibility for mod discussion; one problematic list, which causes descriptions to not be posted, but to go directly into the queue.

 

I honestly believe things like that would make people more afraid to submit descriptions and would stifle creativity =S I know I'd be afraid to even attempt to submit a description if I felt it could be found offensive somehow and blocked from submitting. While a new method of accepting descriptions may be needed for the long haul, I think the safest bet the DC community has for right now is description mods and a report button.

 

Why on earth would you... look, the way things are now, I don't bother to submit descriptions because I know, if I do, it'll be -months at least- before they're approved, via a process that lets possibly dozens or scores of people who probably know less about grammar than I do make "helpful" editorial suggestions about everything from my punctuation and spelling to why I chose to describe a certain dragon a certain way, all while waiting for ultimately -one- mod approval, who is probably trying to read and approve -hundreds- of descriptions every day, out of--I don't even want to imagine how many must be waiting in the queue right now. The system -as it works now- works -exactly like you are afraid-, except -worse-, because it takes much longer, and the reviewing is in the hands of -anybody- who bothers to click the "review descriptions" link--and they can't make the ultimate decision to approve or reject it anyway! Socky has said -several times in this thread- that more mods will -not- solve the problem; there's too many descriptions already, the pile is already too huge, and all they'll be doing is trying to bail out a boat that's already over halfway underwater.

 

This proposal gives the mods less work, and lets them focus their work on issues that might actually be legitimate problems, instead of having to double-check -everything-; it gives people a very clear avenue to report problems, if they think that there is one; it prevents -only explicitly obviously bad- descriptions from being posted, while sending -most- of anything that is likely to be a problem to a mod review queue anyway; and in the meantime, more people get more descriptions posted more easily, thus making the process actually -work-, instead of being the pointless, frustrating, eternal uphill slog it is now.

[Obscure_Trash]

Really don't like the idea of strict censorship and word filters in descriptions. Especially the idea of being unable to submit descriptions as punishment for what may be a mistake, misunderstanding, or legitimate use for words =(

 

I honestly believe things like that would make people more afraid to submit descriptions and would stifle creativity =S I know I'd be afraid to even attempt to submit a description if I felt it could be found offensive somehow and blocked from submitting. While a new method of accepting descriptions may be needed for the long haul, I think the safest bet the DC community has for right now is description mods and a report button.

The threat of a dragon being killed for seriously breaking guidelines doesn't seem to scare many people, so I can't see a system like this scaring too many more people than that. owo

 

Although I will say, I've never really come across someone who's descriptions really warranted them not being able to describe anymore. Well, one person, but we were having troubles with them all over the place.

[pbdog]

I support this idea. If there is something bad in the description, it could just become censored or they could add a "report this description button" on the dragons view page and when someone clicks it, it becomes deleted. That way, it would save the mods trouble and the "approve user description" place would just get changed a little bit.

Edited September 29, 2011 by firegirl

[Fengari]

I don't think a report button should automatically delete someone's description, as that could also be abused (for example, refuse someone who begs for an egg, and all your descriptions disappear...)

 

I'm for some kind of semi-automatic approval for descriptions, but a report should always go through a mod.

[Nine]

Why on earth would you... look, the way things are now, I don't bother to submit descriptions because I know, if I do, it'll be -months at least- before they're approved, via a process that lets possibly dozens or scores of people who probably know less about grammar than I do make "helpful" editorial suggestions about everything from my punctuation and spelling to why I chose to describe a certain dragon a certain way, all while waiting for ultimately -one- mod approval, who is probably trying to read and approve -hundreds- of descriptions every day, out of--I don't even want to imagine how many must be waiting in the queue right now. The system -as it works now- works -exactly like you are afraid-, except -worse-, because it takes much longer, and the reviewing is in the hands of -anybody- who bothers to click the "review descriptions" link--and they can't make the ultimate decision to approve or reject it anyway! Socky has said -several times in this thread- that more mods will -not- solve the problem; there's too many descriptions already, the pile is already too huge, and all they'll be doing is trying to bail out a boat that's already over halfway underwater.

 

This proposal gives the mods less work, and lets them focus their work on issues that might actually be legitimate problems, instead of having to double-check -everything-; it gives people a very clear avenue to report problems, if they think that there is one; it prevents -only explicitly obviously bad- descriptions from being posted, while sending -most- of anything that is likely to be a problem to a mod review queue anyway; and in the meantime, more people get more descriptions posted more easily, thus making the process actually -work-, instead of being the pointless, frustrating, eternal uphill slog it is now.

Whoa.

 

I just feel that the idea of being banned from writing descriptions is worse than waiting months. Not trying to usurp any changes that might make the process go faster or smoother, and I'm not trying to make mods do a mountain of work on their own.

 

I've had one or two descriptions rejected for questionable content, one being "referencing illegal drugs". In most cases, those kind of accusations are not taken lightly and anyone putting illegal drug paraphernalia into their descriptions would be rightfully banned from writing more, if not some other action.

 

Except I had no drug references in my description. The reject was most likely due to assumptions brought about my the dragon's name. But no biggie, I edited it and change some wording around, hoping that was the reason for the misunderstanding. No action was taken other than the offical reject.

 

However, my fears are by no means unwarranted. I apologize for using the term "other people" when this really only stems from my personal experiences. I believe I have every right to fear that punishment by banning from writing more descriptions could apply to me in the future, and not because I'm someone going around writing lewd conduct about my dragons. People make mistakes-- as we all do-- but with punishment that goes beyond a reject and turns into a 'never able to write dragon descriptions again', I am of course uncomfortable given my ability to write possibly-seen-as-questionable content.

 

However:

Although I will say, I've never really come across someone who's descriptions really warranted them not being able to describe anymore. Well, one person, but we were having troubles with them all over the place.

This is very reassuring to hear. Given that mods have no doubt come across some really bad stuff but still don't feel it warrants a permanent ban from descriptions, I feel a lot less vulnerable to a potential future ban. Again, I only speak from personal experiences and voiced my concerns about a feature that deals out such serious punishment =)

[elynne]

It would not be a permanent ban on the first offense. The first offense would be a temporary ban. It would not be for questionable words or phrases. It would be for very specific words or phrases that cannot be rationally misinterpreted any other way. (for example: referring to female reproductive anatomy with the "C word" would be on that list. Using the word that can mean either female reproductive anatomy -or- a cat would -not- be on that list.) And there would be a link to talk to a mod about it. So nobody would be getting perma-banned from posting descriptions based on one misunderstanding. If it was a misunderstanding, there would be an option for a mod to remove the ban entirely.

 

Let me say that again: THERE WOULD BE NO PERMANENT BAN ON FIRST OFFENSE. I would not support that, or endorse it. I would expect that there be a way to contact mods and clarify the situation. The first ban could even just be for one day. The idea is to prevent somebody from putting up a description with one banned word, having it rejected, and then immediately trying again with a different banned word, then another, then another. It would deflect the attention of the casual trolls; having to wait a day or a week before trying again, with the clear explanation of what they did, and that if they did it again the next ban would be longer, will cool the heels of many kids who are trying something stupid on a lark.

 

I suggested the permanent ban for a third offense. It can be extended indefinitely; have every infraction of the "ban list" come with a week-long suspension of posting, with no eventual removal of posting privileges. Would that make you feel more comfortable?

[Nine]

Heh, I'm honestly okay with whatever as long as you have to make a conscious effort to get yourself banned. That's really all that I was aiming for with my uncertainty of a censor-filter.

[elynne]

Ah, I see! Okay then. Yes, the idea is to give very clear avenues for discussing rejected descriptions, and to make honest-to-gosh banning a fairly difficult thing to manage.

[MessengerDragon]

I think I like the set amount of normal user approves idea.

[OtomeKristinOtaku]

I think users should be able to approve the descriptions. For example, when 5 or more user accepts your description and there is only 1 abstain and no rejects, the description should automatically get approved. This should follow a ratio of 5:1:0, so if there is a reject, then there needs to be 10 accepts in order for the description to get auto-approved.

 

Just in case someone rejects or abstains without an explanation, if there are more than 3 rejects/more than 3 abstains without any message or note to explain why, then those rejects/abstains shouldn't count and the description still gets approved when 5 or more users accept your description.

Edited May 4, 2014 by OtomeKristinOtaku

[angelicdragonpuppy]

@Nine: This isn't a system that would lead to any more bans than the normal route. In the current system, you usually have to wait many months for a description to be approved, and if problems arise, you can discuss them with a mod. This would be the exact same thing without the long waiting part. (My OP is pretty old and doesn't really explain this properly, but at least now that's how I fancy it would work, haha!) If something's off enough about your description that it gets reported, it essentially goes through the process we have now, where you can receive feedback / rejections from mods without being banned for it. Unless you did something truly terribly nasty, of course, but I imagine anyone with honest intentions wouldn't meet those standards. ^^

 

...Oh! I just realized one downside of this could be that those who actually enjoy reviewing (aka, reading) descriptions might then miss out, so perhaps a change like this could go hand-in-hand with some type of feature to show random / newly approved descriptions and / or a way to save people's comments on them.

Edited May 4, 2014 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Dimar]

Honestly I'm against this suggestion. I know the description system needs MAJOR overhaul to fix the backlog issue, but I feel like this isn't such a good option. I just see too many unreliable issues.

 

If the description is immediately put on the page, even with the censor, then goodbye quality control. Which is majorly needed, because... oh man. Some of it frankly makes no sense. And even with the censor, there's descrips that go against the very specific guidelines set by TJ as well as general inappropriate things that won't necessarily be caught. The Guidelines aren't exactly read or followed by everyone and while I understand things can be reported, not every description is going to eventually be read by someone else within a reasonable time frame.

 

As for being accepted based on user reviews, that's a bit better but still not something I'm comfortable relying on. Reviewers do well generally, but we tend to review quite differently and there are times when individuals give wrong suggestions, misunderstand the rules, or we don't exactly concur with what a mod would do. I know I mess up a lot. Some people Accept with a few errors if the rest of it is good, while other Reject if there's any. It ranges.

(Besides, Sock has stated that she finds Acceptable descriptions that have been voted down and descriptions that should be Rejected that are voted up. Mods with better experience and certainty should really be the ones that judge the final call with feedback from the reviewers.)

 

Description-specific moderators are what we really need, because once the backlog got worked down then it could STAY down to a much more reasonable level. No system will be perfect, of course, but really I feel mods are the best option. Maybe I care too much about quality control and responsibility, but meh.

 

Unpopular opinion ftw.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Dimar

[Nine]

@Nine: This isn't a system that would lead to any more bans than the normal route. In the current system, you usually have to wait many months for a description to be approved, and if problems arise, you can discuss them with a mod. This would be the exact same thing without the long waiting part. (My OP is pretty old and doesn't really explain this properly, but at least now that's how I fancy it would work, haha!) If something's off enough about your description that it gets reported, it essentially goes through the process we have now, where you can receive feedback / rejections from mods without being banned for it. Unless you did something truly terribly nasty, of course, but I imagine anyone with honest intentions wouldn't meet those standards. ^^

Yeah, enough time has passed since I first posted in this thread, and I'm not so nervous about being banned for descriptions. In part because I rarely write them anymore, due to the long wait time! =P

[CNR4806]

I still don't think it is appropriate.

 

Remember, a name can only have up to 32 characters; descriptions have 1000. It is way easier to abuse it.

 

And at the same time, descriptions have a much higher required standards than names (which have no real standards whatsoever other than prohibiting offensive content). And as a result they aren't really comparable.

 

I do agree that the description approval system needs a major overhaul, but the problems of an auto-approval system or approval-by-random-members system outweighs the benefits in my opinion.

Edited May 5, 2014 by CNR4806

[Banyanpan]

The first thing I would do if this idea got approved would be to copy and paste lines from My Immortal (the fanfiction, not the song) and see how long it would take for me to get banned. It would be hilarious.

 

I'm joking of course, but I am strongly against this idea. Maybe the approval after a certain number of accepts idea, but definitely not the auto-approve idea. It's just too easy to abuse.