OSNews

Ok, I've removed "Average Score" from v3. It was a useless stat anyway. Now there should be no major problem with a big downmod.

Sorry, I think you need the chilling.

I'm sick of people slamming Thom for this bullshit. He pretty much manages the site on his own, and deals with what he perceives as trolls accordingly.

http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?261273

Personally, I don't always agree with his modding choices, but the fact is, *I* granted him the rights to mod, and he should have that ability to deal with morons who deserve it.

This was a small bug that had no real effect (even trust was unaffected), and to see people freaking out here, on Digg, and elsewhere is silly. I'm capping it here.

http://digg.com/software/Osnews_Newbie_Moderation

No chilling needed.

Sorry Adam, am I missing something?
When I read the user profile of "predictor" in v4, I can still see "Average Comment Score: -3.48", at the bottom of the page.
It seems to have gone from v3, though.

So your answer to Thom's mod-trolling is to remove the average comment score? That's pretty uncool. I typically take a look at this when running across ridiculous comments from people I don't know to tell if it was a one time outburst or if they're habitual trolls.

I'm not going to get in some ridiculous pissing match with you, so you can chill the f--k out and I'll just leave it at that. I would hope the admins of this site could behave themselves in a bit more mature manner, but I guess that's asking too much.

I'm pretty tired of the "it's my ball and I can do what I want" attitude. At least pretend to have a community. I realize you guys aren't paid so there is nothing to lose, but I'm not either. But anytime someone asks a question it's "Fxxx You" and shut up. I guess it is time to "clone up". But I really do like this site. I pay an annual fee to support it. But this is juvenile.

I recognize that you guys are pissed for some reason, but at least PRETEND to have some respect for the amount of work that goes into this site.

I bend my back to respond to every bit of feedback I get personally, and this post, and the first responses, came out swinging. I'm sorry you don't like the change to unlimited up and down votes, and I'm sorry you're so upset that the **initial** change created some unintended consequences. I find it hilarious that I have to apologize for this at all.

But it really burns me up that you come here and tell me I am somewhow disrespecting "the community," when you're posting in an area intended to empower that very community!! Every single thing I've done for OSNews - from friends and fans to recommendations to friends' recommendations via RSS to conversations to peer moderation to inline retrieval of downmodded comments has been to bolster the community. I think it's fair to say I have worked harder than any other individual to build OSNews into a community.

That's why it double sucks to read this stuff. Posts like this really make me want to pull the plug on all of that. There was absolutely positively no "Fxxx You" and shut up. You're flat out making that up. I came here and explained what happened. It's not my fault you don't like the answer.

You're unhappy, I assume, at the manner in which I replied, but you've failed to examine the manner in which people presented the problem in the first place.

Here are some immutable truths:
1. This *is* an admin controlled site.
2. Admins will always have additional moderation abilities.

Those won't change. The rest is us learning to live with that and sculpting the site around it.

I already explained: it's not mod-trolling, the mods were all well deserved in the cases they were applied. And it was already a useless indicator. ONE +5 post gave you an average of 5. A poster with 300 posts whose average is +2 is a GREAT commenter, much better than most. The stat was warped and useless, and in v4, we show you registration date, which tells you if they are new or not. It was long overdue for removal.



Whatever you say, dude. We - me in particular - have always been very open to feedback, provided it's presented in a fair manner that allows us to properly react. I've never seen another site like this provide so many personal methods of contacting their admins.

When I come to see the site and see bitching, pissing, and moaning and rushing to judgment as a first resort, I respond in kind, by telling everyone to chill the f--- out - we'll take care and/or explain. Which I did.



Well, I would hope you could have a decent discussion here without being a dick, but I guess that's asking too much. When you're ready to talk without being an a-hole, let me know, I'll be here.

Adam, honestly, one should ask himself why this place is so highly controversial when it comes to moderation while others are not.

Examples:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070806&mode=18#commen...

Ladislav comes regularly under ferocious attack, but he hardly ever deletes any post. There is no moderation.

http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/default.aspx

Here some sort of moderation is necessary because of the sheer size, but the fairness and maturity shown by Jim Lynch never ceases to amaze me.

Plenty more examples could be possible: the now deceased linuxiso.org, the Libranet forum...places where admins hardly ever intervened.

So one question is unavoidable: if others can, why this site can't?

None of that had anything to do with me.