Trust Levels post Discourse (EPIC MEGADIXXX)



  • Minor things like a restricted category are fine, but honestly I'm not okay with granting mod-like (i.e. ones that allow you to meddle directly with other users' content) purely based on e-penis length.

    Also, there are issues with people dropping out of the requirements, etc, etc... All in all, I think it's best to ultimately have forum staff (or even users already on the given level) serve as the final judges when it comes to more "elite" levels - some sort of an acceptance queue, or something.



  • Also don't repeat Discourse's mistakes. If I post a topic, then later lose my "trust level", I SHOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO MY TOPIC DAMMIT.



  • Feature request for NodeBB: @blakeyrat only has access to the downvote/dislike button.
    A dislike should count the same as a like for any automated promotion.


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said:

    Also don't repeat Discourse's mistakes. If I post a topic, then later lose my "trust level", I SHOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO MY TOPIC DAMMIT.

    I'd actually solve that another way. If it were me i would say that promotions may be automatic but demotions are moderator/admin action only, that way the only way you lose access to things you have posted is by explicit human interaction.

    Sure, the human who demoted you could very well be a giant dick and is doing so unfairly, but that's a problem between them and the user. The software should not automatically demote someone.

    still not perfect, but better than the automatic demotions and avoids the scenario where (for instance) a mod creates a thread in a mods only area to discuss current requests for moderation with other mods. If that mod then is demoted (for cause or without cause) they shouldn't keep access to that thread because there is sensitive mod only information there and they aren't a mod anymore.

    but then, what do I know about permissions, i'm just a developer.



  • @accalia said:

    The software should not automatically demote someone.

    Of course it should if it automatically promotes them.


  • mod

    It shouldn't demote someone for inactivity. You don't become less trustworthy just because you go on vacation.

    Software is bad at deducing if someone's a giant DB and you should revoke their privileges, though flags can sometimes be an approximation.



  • @accalia said:

    The software should not automatically demote someone.

    Doing It Wrong™. Also, any forum we migrate to should use an algorithm to autoban anyone it thinks the developers won't like.


  • sockdevs

    @loopback0 said:

    Of course it should if it automatically promotes them.

    why?

    no, seriously why? Blakey has a point about the automated demotions and his threads, but at the same time I also have a point about losing access to sensitive information when you lost the trust that gained you access to that sensitive information.

    Taking that into consideration then I am left with two possible conclusions:

    Either

    • the forum should not automatically promote or demote any user
      or
    • The forum can automatically promote only and human interaction is required to demote.

    But maybe i'm missing information, Why should the forum automatically demote, and under what circumstances should it do so?



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    It shouldn't demote someone for inactivity.

    Right, and I don't disagree with that but that's a different discussion about whether activity should be part of the criteria for promotion for something called a "trust" level.
    The point still stands that if the software is able to automatically promote, it should be able to demote



  • @accalia said:

    why?

    There are criteria - if you get automatically promoted then you should be automatically demoted when you no longer meet them.
    This happened to me too FWIW.

    @accalia said:

    Blakey has a point about the automated demotions and his threads

    Blakey's situation was different - the rules changed. There should have been a grace period to give him a chance to meet the new criteria and after that it's fair game. Except for him losing easy access to his posts.

    If you lose access to a more-elevated area, you should retain access to your own posts but not the other replies.

    edit: Note - as I said one post up, whether the criteria are stupid or not is a different discussion.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    You don't become less trustworthy just because you go on vacation.

    Yeah it's not like taking a hiatus should set you back isn't it @loopback0 ? :trollface:

    @loopback0 said:

    This happened to me too



  • @loopback0 said:

    If you lose access to a more-elevated area, you should retain access to your own posts but not the other replies.

    But what's the security / user difference between someone losing TL3 and an ex-moderator no longer being able to review their input in site moderation discussions? Or, to go one step further, how can the computer reliably know that the post in a TL3-locked area was in fact put there by the user back when he had sainted access, versus a post getting moved to the moderation graveyard that should NOT be accessible? (Even assuming that the computer in question is running something more intelligent than DC).



  • @Luhmann said:

    @Yamikuronue said:
    You don't become less trustworthy just because you go on vacation.

    Yeah it's not like taking a hiatus should set you back isn't it @loopback0 ? :trollface:

    :hanzo:

    But, as both promotions were based on not disappearing without notice or explanation for a few weeks, both demotions were expected.



  • @izzion said:

    how can the computer reliably know that the post in a TL3-locked area was in fact put there by the user back when he had sainted access

    It doesn't matter, it's that user's post. They posted it. Whatever information is in it is already known by that user.
    That's why I said they should have access to their posts but not any replies in restricted areas.


  • :belt_onion:

    @loopback0 said:

    without notice or explanation

    You want to say you think you can reason with Discourse?

    You damned fool! You're going to get yourself killed!



  • @loopback0 said:

    :hanzo:

    Aha! I :hanzo:-ed you by counter :hanzo:-ing your quote in the :hanzo: edit window of my post! Who's :hanzo: now!



  • @Onyx said:

    You want to say you think you can reason with Discourse?

    Not just Discourse, as the demotion that actually mattered was manual. But still fair.



  • YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKED :hanzo:...



  • @loopback0 said:

    YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKED :hanzo:...

    But I don't see any :hanzo: in your :hanzo:


  • :belt_onion:

    Ah, fair enough. I was on a hiatus when that happened as well IIRC, so excuse my ignorance.


  • :belt_onion:

    @Luhmann said:

    But I don't see any :hanzo: in your :hanzo:

    Exactly! They are actually good at being :hanzo:s



  • @Onyx said:

    Ah, fair enough. I was on a hiatus when that happened as well IIRC, so excuse my ignorance.

    High five for hiatus club!



  • @Luhmann said:

    @loopback0 said:
    YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKED :hanzo:...

    But I don't see any :hanzo: in your :hanzo:

    You're not supposed to see :hanzo: before they see you...



  • Wasn't it proved up that ex-TL3 people still had access to their Lounge posts via "download my posts"?



  • Yes. Which renders the point sort of :cow2: but they should still show up when I look at my posts in my profile.


  • sockdevs

    @izzion said:

    Wasn't it proved up that ex-TL3 people still had access to their Lounge posts via "download my posts"?

    multiple times.

    As I understand Blakey's argument that is insufficient.

    EDIT: Clarified to avoid accidentally "Lying"

    EDIT2: I have been corrected in my understanding. Please see replies for more information.


  • sockdevs

    @accalia said:

    As I understand Blakey's argument that is insufficientis anything he doesn't like is automatically the wrong way of doing things, no matter whether his way makes sense or not.

    <!---->


  • @Yamikuronue said:

    You don't become less trustworthy just because you go on vacation.

    That's true. Part of the discourse way of trust levels is a reward for being an active participant. It's not just about trust. Which isn't to defend or promote the Discourse Way, just to point out that even though it's called Trust Level, it's not purely trust.



  • Yeah. I'm not sure what a better name would be, but trust level isn't the right name for something that matches the automated default criteria.


  • sockdevs

    User rank


  • sockdevs

    @RaceProUK said:

    @accalia said:
    As I understand Blakey's argument that is insufficientis anything he doesn't like is automatically the wrong way of doing things, no matter whether his way makes sense or not.

    <!---->

    I did not say that.

    -_-

    That is all.

    :micdrop: :exitstageright:


  • sockdevs

    @accalia said:

    I did not say that.

    I know; I did



  • @RaceProUK said:

    User rank

    This is the term I've seen used on most forum software.



  • @loopback0 said:

    Not just Discourse, as the demotion that actually mattered was manual. But still fair.

    What's funny is that it probably wouldn't have happened at all if you hadn't been running bots that expected old disco-API, which is what brought it all to our attention at a time of cooties.



  • @boomzilla said:

    33 posts were split to a new topic: [Trust Levels post Discourse][1]

    Three times in a day?! You need a holiday or something?! :wtf:
    [1]: https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/trust-levels-post-discourse/51540



  • @boomzilla said:

    What's funny is that it probably wouldn't have happened at all if you hadn't been running bots that expected old disco-API

    They weren't even supposed to be online. The bloody EC2 instance got rebooted and supervisor restarted them :/

    Like I said though, it was fair, even if I do now wish I had such powers back :laughing:



  • Damn, no more yellow posts with witty commentary for me to like...



  • Agreed, it is a major mistake to grant me discretionary power, I will eventually abuse it in some harmful way. This is not sarcasm. But if I exercise a power there is a chance of Dredd.



  • @loopback0 said:

    The point still stands that if the software is able to automatically promote, it should be able to demote

    ... why?

    I don't see your reasoning here.



  • @izzion said:

    But what's the security / user difference between someone losing TL3 and an ex-moderator no longer being able to review their input in site moderation discussions? Or, to go one step further, how can the computer reliably know that the post in a TL3-locked area was in fact put there by the user back when he had sainted access, versus a post getting moved to the moderation graveyard that should NOT be accessible? (Even assuming that the computer in question is running something more intelligent than DC).

    That's implementation detail. We're talking about the expected behavior, not the code required to implement it.



  • @accalia said:

    multiple times.

    As I understand Blakey's argument that is insufficient.

    No; they predated the "download your posts" feature. Once that feature was in-place and proven to do what I considered correct, I never had that debate again.

    Go look.


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said:

    @accalia said:
    multiple times.

    As I understand Blakey's argument that is insufficient.

    No; they predated the "download your posts" feature. Once that feature was in-place and proven to do what I considered correct, I never had that debate again.

    Go look.

    Ah. My understanding was out of date.

    My apologies, I shall correct my statement.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @loopback0 said:
    The point still stands that if the software is able to automatically promote, it should be able to demote

    ... why?

    I don't see your reasoning here.

    If there are criteria which say "this person is now worthy of automatic promotion" then why wouldn't it work the other way when those criteria no longer apply? Those criteria are no longer met, so whatever promotion no longer applies either.

    Whether the criteria are right or not (I'm not saying they are/were) is a different matter.



  • @loopback0 said:

    If there are criteria which say "this person is now worthy of automatic promotion" then why wouldn't it work the other way when those criteria no longer apply?

    Why would it?

    You're just rephrasing your assumption as a question. I'm looking for the answer to the question.



  • The conditions for automatic promotion are no longer met, so the automatic promotion no longer applies.

    If the conditions change then there should be a reasonable grace period to meet the new conditions, but after that, it's fair game.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'm looking for the answer to the question.

    It really depends on the purpose of the user level/rank/trust/whatever. If it really means the user's trustworthiness for performing mod/admin tasks, neither promotion nor demotion should be automated, IMHO. If it's just an indication of who is an active participant in the community and who's just a casual visitor, automated criteria for promotion and probably demotion make sense. If it's an indication of regard or reputation, automated criteria also make sense, perhaps, although not the same criteria as activity. Part of the problem of TL is that it tries to mash all these into a single measurement, resulting in a measurement that is not really useful for any of those.



  • @loopback0 said:

    The conditions for automatic promotion are no longer met, so the automatic promotion no longer applies.

    Right, but once you're elected President of the United States, you're always President of the United States, even if you really suck at your job. Even if you get impeached.

    It's not a "given" that all promotions can become demotions. It's that way because Atwood made it that way, not because it's some God-given law from heaven.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Right, but once you're elected President of the United States

    That's not the same thing.

    Whatever. This discussion's been had too many times.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Right, but once you're elected President of the United States, you're always President of the United States, even if you really suck at your job. Even if you get impeached.

    But you don't get to read the classified briefing reports any more like you used to. Yeah, you keep the honorific. It's not the same as having all the rights and privileges of the current President.



  • I don't think we need time-dependent promotion criteria at all, in which case automatic demotion is a moot point.

    Would we want to include something like an endorsement from an existing member in the promotion criteria?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.