Re: editor delete votes

Janitors don't need nuke power. Frankly, there are only a few cases I can think of in the past year where janitorial reap power would have been helpful. On the other hand, I can't think of any cases where it would have hurt for the power to exist. I think for the most part Janitors have reasonable restraint, particularly when it comes to their philosophy toward reaping nodes. But I'd rather see the scales weigh against reaping in general, and that probably means not giving the power to reap to Janitors, even if it requires three or however many janitorial reap votes.

Speaking with a few in the CB yesterday we discussed a change to number of moderation votes needed to reap a node. I'm in favor of that strategy. If I recall, it was 3 keep or (keep+edit)/2 > 3 to block. And the number of delete votes required would go to 10. We have a lot more "moderators" nowadays than a few years ago. We almost always see considerations reaching at least ten votes one way or another. Reaping is getting accepted or blocked prematurely under the current situation.

Furthermore, there should be a Janitors checkoff required before a node that has met auto-reaping criteria actually gets automatically reaped. We have enough janitors that this shouldn't cause a substantial delay in reaping, and this will prevent mob mentality from getting a node reaped that really shouldn't be. I can think of a number of instances where this would have been a good idea over the past year or so.

So my proposal would be: Increase number of delete votes needed to 10.
Increase number of keeps to block to 3.
Alter Keep/Edit to block to (keep+edit)/2 > 3.
Require a checkoff by any janitor prior to a node actually getting reaped.

...just my .02 ;)

Dave

Comment on Re: editor delete votes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: editor delete votes (keep) by tye (Sage) on Jul 15, 2005 at 04:46 UTC
It should be keep+(edit/2) >= 3; changed from the current keep+(edit/2) >= 2. I like increasing the counts, as we haven't had any real trolls in years and we've had quite a bit of overreaping. But I also prefer janitor unreap over janitor approval. I support the "janitor reap" vote, but I realized that I'd be against a lot of reaps that would result because I was against the reaping of a lot of nodes that more than one janitor voted to nuke despite official policy being not to do that at all. But I think the solution for that is "janitor keep" votes. But with the small number of janitors, picking the numbers get trickier. Perhaps, using "keep:reap" notation, 0:3 would reap as would 1:5, but 2 or more "janitor keep" votes would prevent janitorial reaping. I'd also only allow janitorial reap/keep votes if the node is already considered. This has two advantages. First, it means that the reaped node has "reason" and "considered by" displayed like a normally reaped node. Second, it allows the janitorial vote to be reset by unconsidering. Going back to regular consideration votes. I think I'd like a sliding scale there as well. So, using "keep+int(edit/2):delete" notation, 0:8 would reap. As would 1:12, 2:16, 3:20, 4:24. So, if the delete votes reach at least 8+4*(keep+int(edit/2)), then the node would be auto reaped. But I think there needs to be a ceiling to avoid encouraging "rabble rousing" to try to overpower some conscientious 'keep' votes. And so 4 'keep' votes is enough to prevent non-janitorial auto-reaping no matter how many 'delete' votes come in. Also note that janitorial reap does not require a negative reputation. - tye	[reply]
Re^3: editor delete votes (keep) by 5mi11er (Deacon) on Jul 18, 2005 at 16:45 UTC
(sliding votes) - Yes, exactly! The thing that bothered me the most was that given a hypothetical vote of 3 keep, 25 delete, we'd end up keeping the post even though most people thought deleting it was the "right" thing to do. I think a sliding vote type system would resolve that issue, yet ensure that excessive reaping wouldn't become a bigger problem. -Scott	[reply]
Re^4: editor delete votes (keep) by ysth (Canon) on Jul 19, 2005 at 03:43 UTC
I think 2 keep votes is enough that nothing automatic should happen. What we need is a system to allow manual reaping other than pestering a god to force-reap. I'd hate to see that keep limit become variable.	[reply]
Re^2: editor delete votes by ysth (Canon) on Jul 14, 2005 at 16:59 UTC
With janitorial checkoff required, it seems like there'd be no need to tweak the vote requirements. I'd rather see reaping continue to be automatic (with the proposed change to required votes) but allow a janitorial unreap (which would require recently reaped nodes to be listed on nodes requiring editing or somewhere), possibly by the same 3-vote mechanism. In my opinion, whereever gods can be removed from needing to participate in the day to day maintenance of the site, they should be, and unreaping and force-reaping nodes seem to me the easiest pickings.	[reply]
Re^3: editor delete votes by davido (Cardinal) on Jul 15, 2005 at 04:25 UTC
I see your point and agree that it's unnecessary to have both a tweak to criteria and janitorial checkoff. And if unreaping is handed down to the janitors, that will help to eliminate the problem. I am mostly concerned with those times when you go to the fridge to grab a can of coke and find that by the time you return, someone has considered a node for reaping, and it got its required votes and was reaped before anyone with a little more seasoned judgement has time to step back and say "whoah, what's going on here?" I don't think anyone would argue with the assertion that there have been some things reaped that probably shouldn't have been. More demanding criteria, and the ability to unreap will solve this problem. Dave	[reply]
Re^2: editor delete votes by 5mi11er (Deacon) on Jul 14, 2005 at 04:51 UTC
I've wondered (questioned, thought about) the relatively tiny amount of keep/edit votes needed to keep a given node around, blithly (from my view) ignoring the number of delete votes. As mentioned there are quite a few more moderators, and speaking from experience being somewhat new to the task, I've nearly hit the wrong button a few times for doing what was "good" for the monestary (in my opinion of course). Plus, sometimes I'll act rashly and then mull it over and wish I'd not have "voted" that way. I'm sure there has been a lot of discussions about this topic in the past, but I haven't supersearched at this point. If this sparks a healthy debate, great; if someone points me to the FM, I'll accept that too. If I've started a firestorm, I appologize. -Scott	[reply]
Re^3: editor delete votes by ysth (Canon) on Jul 14, 2005 at 19:30 UTC
It's better to weigh things towards not automatically reaping in questionable cases. Nodes can still be reaped once blocked (either via unconsidering/reconsidering or appeal to the gods).	[reply]


Perl: the Markov chain saw
	PerlMonks