[Feedback Thread] Moderator/Admin Official Comments and Downvote Immunity

This conversation is being migrated over from topic #9127/p144 to avoid derailing that thread any further (conversation started in topic #9127/p142).

Basically, the idea has been put forth to give an option to Admins and Moderators to make their comments immune from downvoting and to make them visually distinct for when they are making official comments. Currently, all Admin comments are downvote proof. Below is some feedback from Admins/Moderators already received on this topic...

Type-kun said (Admin):

To be frank, I don't like that ALL my comments are immune to downvotes now. It's actually somewhat restricting, since making bad jokes or controversial statements feels like abusing my authority.

OOZ662 said (Moderator):

On the topic of mod/admin comment voting, I make plenty of doofy and/or "regular user" comments that should be subject to score. I've seen other sites (most notably Reddit) allow "staff" level accounts to flag certain comments as being "official business" which marks them in a special way and/or keeps them visible. I'm not sure how hard tha'd be to code in, but I'd imagine it being a checkbox next to "No Bump" that would add something below the timestamp denoting that the comment is "official" (no decently clear words or short phrases come to mind right now) and make it immune to voting.

issue #2799 has already been created to address this, however, some are arguing to make the official comments the option, and regular comments the default. Others are arguing to make official comments the default, and regular comments the option.

So what is the preferred option..?

• Default Official, Regular Optional
• Default Regular, Official Optional

Also, please chime in if you have any other thoughts regarding this...

Mmm, I'm not a Moderator+ but I like the second option more. The Redditesque way that OOZ662 speaks of. I think that way Mod+ are allowed to make 'regular' comments without being imposing, then. After all, if they're commenting here and there, most of the time the situation is normal. It's only in dissonant situations where an "Official" comment should be made, say like when a user acts out of behavior or breaks rules etc.

I don't really like any of these options. They are all too risky in my eyes, with option two way more.
To Danbooru, there aren't that many disputes where a mod has to step in, but if there is one, there should always be a 100% chance that the comment is seen. If mods fear that they have too much authority, because they can't be down voted, then I'd say that they should refrain from making such unnecessary comments in the first place if that is the real reason and is not a valid reason that users have to fear something since they couldn't read an official statement.
But still: Official by default is still way, way better than "Regular Default".

Provence said:

I don't really like any of these options. They are all too risky in my eyes, with option two way more.
To Danbooru, there aren't that many disputes where a mod has to step in, but if there is one, there should always be a 100% chance that the comment is seen. If mods fear that they have too much authority, because they can't be down voted, then I'd say that they should refrain from making such unnecessary comments in the first place if that is the real reason and is not a valid reason that users have to fear something since they couldn't read an official statement.
But still: Official by default is still way, way better than "Regular Default".

I think this is largely a decision left up to the Mod+ though, since they're the ones who are going to be using this change and Type-kun said it himself that he doesn't like the fact that it feels restricting -- to always have others see his bad jokes or controversial statements and not be subject to having them downvoted. If you put it that way, then they're pretty much in 100% serious mode all the time even when they want to make a stupid joke or comment they know someone won't like.

Mikaeri said:

I think this is largely a decision left up to the Mod+ though, since they're the ones who are going to be using this change and Type-kun said it himself that he doesn't like the fact that it feels restricting -- to always have others see his bad jokes or controversial statements and not be subject to having them downvoted. If you put it that way, then they're pretty much in 100% serious mode all the time even when they want to make a stupid joke or comment they know someone won't like.

Well, that is being part of a moderator, though. Moderators just shouldn't make stupid comments all the time. Like I said: All the time. Off course there is room for spam, even for moderators. I don't know why this image exists that moderators should always be the most serious people in a forum. It is like an utopia, this image of a moderator. They should be serious to some extent, but they should not go overboard with that and on Danbooru that is hardly possible, anyway. So this is more like a small part and not being able to get downvoted has nothing to do with making "fun, "stupid" commentaries". Both is possible and does not bite the other aspect. I simply don't see the restriction and it also no practical limitation if one moderator can't get downvoted.

Provence said:

And what "controversies" would be created anyway? I can't imagine any.

You already know well about the people here, don't you? No matter what changes in this site, either it's good or bad, someone will always complain about it. In this case, someone will complain why Mod with their subpar commments are immune to be downvoted. If Mods' commment is immune by default, others will expect Moderator to be always make an intellectual, wiseman-like comment to living up for their immunity. Which means it's inevitable that someone will appear complaining if Mods are spotted making an unintellect comment even ONCE.

If default immunity means restriction of their freedom of speech, why bother? You really don't think that Mods should always make an intellectual comment, do you?

Sacriven said:

If default immunity means restriction of their freedom of speech, why bother?

Those things are not even closely related as stated above. Immunity is not restricting anyone. A mod can still write what they think and that way we don't even have to fear that if some moderator makes an official statement that nobody will read it.

if someone still thinks that a moderator is writing bullshit, then there is always the option to write a comment. That is way better than voting, too. Because "voting" does't solve possible misunderstandings, especially if a comment gets hidden by a low threshold of -1.

Provence said:

Those things are not even closely related as stated above. Immunity is not restricting anyone. A mod can still write what they think and that way we don't even have to fear that if some moderator makes an official statement that nobody will read it.

if someone still thinks that a moderator is writing bullshit, then there is always the option to write a comment. That is way better than voting, too. Because "voting" does't solve possible misunderstandings, especially if a comment gets hidden by a low threshold of -1.

Like I said, giving Mods a default immunity will raise expectation from others for Mod to always make an intellectual comment. Once Mods making a joke/subpar comment, which sometimes others can't agree for, they will try to downvote it but realize that they can't, causing unnecessary uproars in the forum or comment section.

Well yes, there's that. But in the end, non-Mod comments will be susceptible to downvote, which can be done by everyone. Trolls will take advantage of this to fanning the flames, and redirecting their anger towards Mod's downvote immunity rights. Just like people who got flagged and then angry towards the flagger rather than checking the pics' horrendous flaws beforehand.

Did you just contradict yourself? If commenting is better option than voting, then the same can be applied to Mods. If Mods' comment got downvoted, all that they need is just commenting again (and quoting the downvoted comment, just in case).

To me there should be an option to protect comments, mods or otherwise, so that they can't be downvoted.

Its not a default, but that way its not strictly tied to all mods, but can be made as needed.

I want to have my default posts subject to the same rating system as normal when I make posts. While I doubt this system can be abused (because to what end, really), it just makes it more convenient.

Saladofstones said:

To me there should be an option to protect comments, mods or otherwise, so that they can't be downvoted.

Its not a default, but that way its not strictly tied to all mods, but can be made as needed.

I want to have my default posts subject to the same rating system as normal when I make posts. While I doubt this system can be abused (because to what end, really), it just makes it more convenient.

Yeah, I completely agree with optional immunity. It also helps to shut up all objections from other users when the time is come.

I don't see a situation where a mod somehow forgetting to mark their important comment as immune (which should be rare as a comment serious enough to deserve immunity should be carefully constructed and deployed) would cause some sort of massive crippling problem. At worst the situation would continue a little longer until either the first or another mod came along and edited or replaced the comment.

Well, I'm just used different to moderation then. When it works, then it is ok (it probably won't, since if that is the intention, then there will be probably some mods who would make it always "official".
To me, it doesn't make much sense, though. If a moderator says something, then it should be cleared up as soon as possible and not another mod should step in if there is already said something. I still don't like this, but it is better than a complete no.

Umm, so I went ahead and implemented this, but I didn't see this thread until after.

Basically, I added a 'post as moderator' checkbox, defaulting to off, but you (or any mod) can edit the comment later to turn it on. It's not on Danbooru yet, but it is at http://devbooru.evazion.ml:3000/comments if you want to see what I'm talking about. Quoting myself from issue #2799:

• Adds a 'post as moderator' option to the comment form. This creates a so-called sticky comment.
• Stickied comments may be downvoted, but they are never hidden (they're always visible, regardless of score).
• Stickied comments have a slight background highlight.
• Only mods may sticky comments.
• Mods may sticky comments left by other mods (or even by regular users).
• Admin comments may now be downvoted.

Stickied comments are always visible and are highlighted. They can still be downvoted, but it has no effect.

I did it this way so that mods can sticky existing comments that may have already been downvoted. Mods can also sticky other people's comments. This is mainly intended so that mods can sticky existing warnings given by other mods, but it's also allowed to sticky regular users' comments, in case that's useful.

Wow that's nice. Great job on that, evazion. I'm +1 on having that go live.

And I'm going to have to really agree with Sacriven and the other mods on this one. It isn't a mod's job to be 100% official all the time. Not every comment should be a "moderator" comment -- Reddit and other sites don't do it that way either.

Provence said:

Well, I'm just used different to moderation then. When it works, then it is ok (it probably won't, since if that is the intention, then there will be probably some mods who would make it always "official".
To me, it doesn't make much sense, though. If a moderator says something, then it should be cleared up as soon as possible and not another mod should step in if there is already said something. I still don't like this, but it is better than a complete no.

It should make complete sense. Mods can masquerade as regular users too. On default, you can't see colored names that indicate the role they have. And IMHO its better to leave it that way (even if it can be turned on in the settings). Everyone makes dumb comments, but Sacriven is right in that if a mod+ makes a bad comment then that's held up to a higher degree and divides users, because users will likely think that mods can say any dumb crap that they want whereas they can't. It's hypocrisy. If a comment needs to be made official because of such and such arguing/controversy/personal attacks then let it be so. But I'd say more than 90% of the time if you're commenting often because you like discussion, you're not going to be running very often into things where you absolutely HAVE to have a comment be seen.

EDIT: One thing to add, also, is that the way we have it now, downvote-immune comments are intensely reflective of how other normal users perceive the site compared to the higher ups. I've seen one comment go as far to say it's a shame that the mods are as I quote, "SJW's".

So yeah, mods can be wrong too. No one's ever going to 100% agree with you.

+1, I like the idea of Mods being able to "sticky" anyone's comments. Thanks for the extra HTML markup BTW, as the default shading on my crappy monitor doesn't show up very well so I'll probably end up changing it.

On Devbooru, I did notice that when "downvoting" sticky comments still lowers the score of the comment, which I guess was intentional. It also hides that particular comment until the page is refreshed, which probably wasn't intentional but an artifact of the Javascript...?

Overall, I'm of the thought to let the current changes as proposed by Evazion go through and just try them out for a while... if things need to be changed at some point, then another issue can just be created.

This feature is now live.

BrokenEagle98 said:

On Devbooru, I did notice that when "downvoting" sticky comments still lowers the score of the comment, which I guess was intentional. It also hides that particular comment until the page is refreshed, which probably wasn't intentional but an artifact of the Javascript...?

Allowing downvotes is intentional because stickied comments are always shown regardless of score, so downvotes don't really matter. This way the comment is visible, but it's still possible to tell if people are downvoting it (I'm curious to see if downvoting mod comments is indeed a regular occurrence).

Hiding the comment when it's downvoted isn't intentional, in fact I don't really like that behavior normally. Any opinions on this? I think downvoting should just dim the comment if it puts it below your threshold.

evazion said:

Hiding the comment when it's downvoted isn't intentional, in fact I don't really like that behavior normally. Any opinions on this? I think downvoting should just dim the comment if it puts it below your threshold.

Dim the comments until page refresh, which would then I assume hide it...?

I could go for that. Especially since that's how below threshold comments look when displayed without cursor hover...

While we're at it, there's been some talk in topic #9127/p147 of lowering the default comment threshold to something like -5. I'm not really for it (since I'd probably just set mine back to 0 anyways), but what do others think about that...?

If one downvote is enough, then I don't know how good this is. It is not like these comments are awful or so. Maybe you just stumble across one person who doesn't agree with that and boom, hidden. Set it to 2, so that 2 people have to downvote (or there are multiple sockpuppet accounts). Anyway, it seems safer for normas conversations, even if mods have now the power to make some commentaries sticky.

How many people actually vote on comments? (Since the scores are only visible with userscripts, I honestly have no idea.) We should take those numbers into consideration before changing the threshold, so it's not moved too far. I agree that it ought to take at least 2 downvotes, but it shouldn't be too hard to hide shitposts and fanboy drooling.

(EDIT: Before someone complains, I want to specify that by "fanboy drooling" I don't mean excited posts about new content, I mean "OMG so sexy I would do this and that to her fat ass")

I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that a lot of the comments that break the rules are handled with downvotes, not moderator tools. (In fact I'm probably wrong about this, since my only evidence is clicking "show all comments" and seeing a bunch of rule-breaking comments that were allowed to stay because they were hidden. But in lieu of more evidence, I'll continue.) Since there's (thankfully) no "karma" or "combined comment score," it seems like the only point of comment voting is to allow the community to self-police the comments section. Lowering the threshold too far will diminish our ability to do that.

One downvote is too few, but 5 might be too many, depending on how active voters are.

(Is it derailing this thread to be talking about normal-user comments?)

Well, according to what I see: Not many voters are here.
And I'm more talking about discussions about flagged posts and take it as an example. It is really easy to gain a -1 in these discussions and that is kinda meh if then a whole site of the discussion is missing and you have to reveal them first.
But ok, that is only what I#ve observed, but maybe @BrokenEagle98 can create a report that gives facts about how many scores were given to comments if necessary.