#Map reporting and redaction

12 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

heavy root
#

I would like to improve the map reporting and auto-redaction algorithms for IXE. I'm not sure if I'd be able to convince knucracker to retroactively implement this in older versions of the auto-moderation system.

In outline, what I'd like to see is if someone regularly reports an inappropriate map, their report carries more weight, so that eventually a single report by a player with a good reputation will be sufficient to remove a map.

At the same time, I'd like to reduce the number of spurious reports, by eventually completely ignoring reports submitted by users who habitually report a map that has no issues.

Here is an outline of how I'm currently thinking such an algorithm might work

1. For each user, initialize a reputation score to 0.
2. For each map, initialize a report count to 0.
3. For each map, initialize a redaction status to "not redacted".
4. Initialize a per-user report limit to 3.
5. Initialize a per-map threshold to 9.
6. When a user reports a map, update the report count for that map by 1. Subtract 1 from their report limit.
7. When a user reports a map that is ultimately redacted, update the reputation score for that user by 1. Add 1 to their report limit. 
8. When a user reports a map that is ultimately not redacted, update the reputation score for that user by -1.
9. [removed - not needed]
10. When a map has 3 or more reports or the total weight of the reports is greater than 9, update the redaction status to "redacted".
11. When a user reaches their report limit, they are unable to make additional reports.
12. When a user reports a map, update the total weight of the submitted reports by the weight of their report.
gray maple
heavy root
#

I guess same as what happens to them now, if someone mentions them, they get removed.

Oh, and if you ask about the reputation of those that did report the map, their score will be updated.

spice goblet
#

might be too easy to reach a deadlock by reporting three old maps with little to no further activity

#

yes, that'd require maps that "slipped through the cracks". dunno how common that is

#

i dont think im a fan of the idea. i doubt you can really automate this as well as you hope

#

and i wonder how bad it could be if five bad actors decided to coordinate and elevate themselves to "1 report - remove" status

heavy root
#

might be too easy to reach a deadlock by reporting three old maps with little to no further activity

This seems to be spurious. How likely is that that a single actor, in retrospect, would find something genuinely inappropriate in a map? I can't recall that something like this has ever happened in the entire history of Creeper World mapmaking.

Should t happen, I imagine, as in most other eventualities, the reporting party will bring it to the attention of knucracker for remediation. And bear in mind, it'd have to happen at least 3 times.

i wonder how bad it could be if five bad actors decided to coordinate and elevate themselves to "1 report - remove" status

a) we don't have many "bad actors"
b) they'd find themselves on the wrong side of a ban pdq.

The major rationale for this is to allow, as in the case of CW3, the few remaining players to be able to effectively report and remove maps that don't meet community standards and requirements.

I think it's only slightly more automated than the current system, but that it will allow for regular reporting users to be more influential to remove unsuitable maps quicker and with fewer reports involved.

spice goblet
#

we dont have many "bad actors"

so far

heavy root
#

oh Grabz ....

river willow
#

Some things I'm thinking:

  1. One player should never have the power to hide a map on his own. Unless it's an official moderator hiding abuse, every map deserves to be looked at with a 2nd set of (fresh) eyes before it gets buried imo. One person might misread a map and not see it's potential of fun for others.

Also, even a person with the best intentions and a stellar track record, might one day have a really bad day. Or their niece got access to their account, or they got stupidly drunk and are going to do some moderating because their significant other kicked them out of the bedroom, or ... And in the aftermath you can have a lot of damage to undo.

  1. Using a system that can be gamed to automatically promote players to power users with semi moderator powers, is guaranteed to be abused. It's not "if" it gets abused, it's "when" it gets abused that you have to worry about. Manually promoting some active players to power users whose vote carries more weight, seems like a better solution to me.

  2. These power users could also have stronger tagging rights, so they can add/suppress tags on maps on their own. Currently the only tag that one of my maps has earned that I didn't add myself, was "bad". Trying to add generic tags for difficulty, size and expected duration to other people's maps is pointless, because there will never be enough other players who add the same tag. I'd still prefer that the system prominently suggests tags to all users upon completion and they get to vote on what seems right, after which the system uses the median tag for expected duration/difficulty/size, but that would probably require more effort to implement.

umbral wraith
#

"a single report by a player with a good reputation will be sufficient to remove a map. "
And what if I just mistakenly report a map because I'm somehow on the wrong version and the map simply doesn't work? Or what if I hate one author in particular and randomly decide to falsely get one of their maps deleted?