[57north-discuss] IRC moderation

[Michael Drahony]

Gona try my hand at this mailing list thing see how it goes wrong :p

im gona chuck in my 2 pence worth, i did think the banning was a little harsh and not so democratic and maybe should have been discussed first.
On my own IRC server i forbid any kind of sensorship so i would have actually been pretty pissed.

Iain has expressed he wants this to be a pg channel due to the possiblity of kids coming in and it could damage the spaces reputation, this makes sense, but he and everyone should talk about commiting to this or not.

thats all!




On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 13:24:04 +0100
Robert McWilliam <rmcw at allmail.net> wrote:

> Yesterday Iain (I see we now have a second Iain - this was irl) banned
> hackerdeenbot from #57N.
> 
> This pissed me off a lot but I decided to hold off complaining about
> it till I'd slept on it to see if I could still be bothered (again)
> trying to fight for what I want the space to be or if I should just
> take the hint and leave the rest of you to it...
> 
> Good news! My obstreperousness has won out and you get the following
> rant.  
> 
> I think[0] he was objecting to a feature of the bot where it will give
> a randomly filled in result from cards against hackspace (a variation
> on cards against humanity that's a subset of the main pack plus some
> hackspace related cards) if there has been no activity in the channel
> for some randomly selected period of time between 10 minutes and 5
> hours.
> 
> I'd categorise the CAH output as often nonsensical, regularly
> offensive (sometimes spectacularly so) and occasionally funny. I think
> that description also applies to the content in #57N that comes from
> people.
> 
> If anyone hasn't seen the CAH output in #57N: this has (finally)
> prompted me to put the code and lists up on github:
> github.com/ormiret/cards-against-hackspace
> 
> You can get a feel for what is produced at idea.bodaegl.com/cah (you
> get a new result each time you visit the page).
> 
> I added this feature to hackerdeenbot for a few reasons.
> 
> Firstly, I find a decent chunk of the CAH output amusing and thought
> others might too.
> 
> Secondly, I thought inserting this when the channel was quiet might
> stimulate discussion. This has happened a couple of times but most of
> the CAH outbursts have happened during the night when no one is paying
> attention to the channel (if hackerdeenbot is allowed back I might
> rethink the scheduling).
> 
> Thirdly, I like that this output is achieved from a trivial
> algorithm. The processing selects from a list of statements with
> <blank>s in them and replaces each <blank> with a random selection
> from the list of answers. It coming up with things that make sense is
> a neat demonstration of the malleability of the English language. I
> really like the cases where the output is grammatically correct but
> doesn't make any sense and the inverse where it is technically wrong
> but there is clearly some meaning to it anyway (and how sometimes the
> mistakes look like the kind of mistakes people make).
> 
> Fourthly, I like the "offensive" output for the questions it raises
> about the nature of offense (and because the things that can be
> offensive in some combinations can be hilarious in others). Is there a
> need for intent behind the statement, or can an algorithm be
> offensive? Even an algorithm as simple as randomly shuffling phrases?
> How much of the offense people find in the statements is from the
> combination the bot has come up with or are there topics that cause
> offense no matter what is said about them?
> 
> I added this feature after reading something from the government about
> them wanting to police speech on the internet. My bot occasionally
> saying things that could have been covered by the proposed limits was
> my small protest in favour of free speech including the right to say
> things that people might find offensive. It amused me to consider
> someone trying to arrest hackerdeenbot. But we don't need to worry
> about the government placing limits on free speech as Iain is way out
> ahead of them.[1]
> 
> Setting aside any of the reasoning for why I think it is OK for the
> bot to have this feature it's clear from the fact that I coded it up
> that I think it's acceptable and even desirable for the bot to do
> this. Iain banning the bot from the channel makes it clear he
> disagrees. I am really pissed off that he thinks unilaterally banning
> the bot is an appropriate way to deal with this disagreement.
> 
> I get that community moderation is a Hard Problem, and hackerdeenbot
> may have stepped over the line of what we decide is acceptable.
> Pushing around that limit is part of the point of the feature.
> 
> I strongly favour a light touch approach to moderation where whether
> or not something is acceptable is discussed and if there is consensus
> that a bot or person is over the line they are told that and allowed
> to change. Banning should be a last resort. I am *very* opposed to
> bans being handed out hypocritically[2] and arbitrarily[3] on the
> whims of individuals.
> 
> TLDR: hackerdeenbot has been banned from #57N and I am not at all
> happy about it. I think hackerdeenbot's behaviour was
> acceptable, and pretty much normal for the channel. I see serious
> problems with the way this ban was imposed.
> 
>       Robert
> 
> [0] From context it looked like that was the trigger but Iain didn't
> actually give any explanation. 
> 
> [1] Just to be clear: this is hyperbole. I don't actually think any of
> my or hackerdeenbot's rights have been trampled here - both I and the
> bot are still free to say what we like elsewhere. But the unilateral
> banning of disagreeable content is not how I want the space
> communication channels to be operated.
> 
> [2] Iain's contributions to the channel are regularly offensive.
> 
> [3] As are many others.
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> Robert McWilliam     rmcw at allmail.net    www.ormiret.com
> 
> Cleverly disguised as a reponsible adult.


-- 
Michael Drahony <michael at drahony.com>