[57north-discuss] IRC moderation

[Michael Drahony]

All those who agree to have a PG channel, reply to this with a yes or no, get it resolved now and out of the way.


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>