Suggestion: Implement Peer Moderation on SDF

How about if those who got downvoted too much will get timed out for like that day/ for a week and the mods would get notified for it?

After all, if you got so much downvote that the system needs to tell the mods you're either being a jerk/provocateur or posts too much low quality/irrelevant content that other members just don't want to read.

Of course there might be loopholes, but mods can also check who downvotes what. If the mods suspected someone is being a jerk and keeps downvoting every single post including quality ones with multiple accounts, it might be easier to catch a provocateur with multiple accounts like tidal wave.

Another useful feature to implement is a thread filtration system where only posts by a certain group of users (people you follow, etc.) would be shown. I sometimes like to look back through old threads and it would be helpful to filter out the 90% of posts that are just useless nattering.

Somehow I get the feeling this is like the justice system from the jury (other members) to the supreme court (Mods), and I certainly don't hate it. Ain't nobody is going to bother the supreme court for trivial matters. Only the stuff that the jury can't handle will pass on to the supreme court's hand. That way the supreme court won't tire out from the sheer number of cases they have to handle.

It is also a good habit of the scientific community to have articles (and in this case, comments) peer-reviewed. Let's hope it can be made to work.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with this proposal.

1. It's not clear at all that the moderators are overwhelmed and that the present system can't function. The forum has a limited number of posts, at most a few hundred per day. Comments that require moderation are likely in the single digits and almost definitely can't be more than a few dozen per day, something that three active moderators can probably deal with in minutes, assuming the posts are reported to them and they want to take action.

2. The proposal doesn't state which posts should be downvoted. Even if this is clearly stated (for example, only rule-breaking or low quality ones), the likely outcome is still voting based on popularity, where majority viewpoints are upvoted and posts that go against prevailing opinion are hidden. I can't absolutely prove that will be the case, because this setup doesn't exist here yet, but we can look at current voting. Here we find many examples of posts that support the preferred narrative receiving a substantial number of likes, even though their central claims are false (first and second (1, 2, 3) example; more can be provided). Comments with demonstrably wrong claims seem like the kind of thing that should be downvoted, but I have very little faith that is how it's going to work in practice.

I have been a member since 2006, so over 14 years...the quality of this forum has decline remarkably due to lack of moderation in recent years.

You couldn't even talk politics back then but now it's getting to IDF level of conversation.
I welcome peer moderation!!!

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I also agree, we need to build up moderator roster, mainly with those based in UK, Canada and USA.

Peer moderation is a good idea, but it could easily have the opposite effect if not implemented carefully. I have observed on multiple occasions that nationalistic and political posts receive quite a few likes, so peer moderation might well promote the opposite of what we intend, which is to reduce the divisive political flame wars.

The current decline in forum quality can be mostly attributed to two important trends in the past several years: a large influx of bombastic fanboys and a lack of moderators. I think any solution should address these two trends. Obviously we need more moderators, but I'm afraid they might not be sufficient to hold back the tide of fanboys.

I propose that we create a dedicated politics/geopolitics forum to direct the off-topic discussions away from the main military forums. Concurrently, strictly enforce a ban on political discussions in the main military forums. If possible, a priority report button should be implemented in the main military forums to flag and report political posts, with warnings and bans swiftly meted out.

Additionally, the sign-up process should include a splash page listing the forum rules, terms, and conditions, with a special emphasis on where political discussions are allowed and where they are forbidden. If an applicant disagrees, then he/she may choose to terminate the application process. Even better, an additional splash page should greet new members when they enter the main military forums, warning them not to post political content. This splash page may go away after a number of days or weeks.

If a new member's first post in the military forum is political in nature, he or she should be banned permanently. Drop the hammer and nip it in the bud. Why take chances?

Just my two cents.

I believe the fundamental decline in forum quality is not necessarily a reflection of a decline in the quantity of moderators in an absolute sense, but rather the growth of the forum in terms of member size and also the increasingly polarized and hostile way in which anything related to China is being discussed and portrayed in other parts of the English language internet and media.

This in turn causes members here who are of Chinese background and who have interests in Chinese geopolitics, economics, and technological advancement overall, to be less charitable towards the way in which foreign media often report on China and also engenders greater hostility and less discipline overall.
Many years ago I thought that the way that things were going, anything China related would fundamentally be political in nature -- what I personally dubbed the "geopoliticization of everything". Whether it's entertainment media, or space launches, or economics, or industry, or technology, or consumer electronics, or health systems. Almost everything China related would end up eventually being captured by geopolitical persuasions as part of the overall competition between China and the US/west. And we are seeing some signs of that "geopoliticization of everything" on SDF as well.


Given the above, I agree with by78, and I feel like having a dedicated subforum where certain political topics can be discussed would be useful, while isolating the flagship military subforums and the relevat flagship military threads on SDF from being politics free.

The overlap between users who are interested in following the PLA and users who are "pro-China" is probably not low, and having a place where those group of people are able to still discuss political topics without intruding on military subforums and without being overly personal and/or outrageous, IMO is not a bad thing.
Fundamentally, SDF as a forum has always had a userbase that is more pro-China than otherwise, just like how every defense forum or community has its own biases and what is considered a "normal" worldview or set of beliefs. For SDF, the question is where do we want to draw the exact line in terms of political discussions, given the unique userbase of this forum.

by78 said:

Peer moderation is a good idea, but it could easily have the opposite effect if not implemented carefully. I have observed on multiple occasions that nationalistic and political posts receive quite a few likes, so peer moderation might well promote the opposite of what we intend, which is to reduce the divisive political flame wars.

The current decline in forum quality can be mostly attributed to two important trends in the past several years: a large influx of bombastic fanboys and a lack of moderators. I think any solution should address these two trends. Obviously we need more moderators, but I'm afraid they might not be sufficient to hold back the tide of fanboys.

I propose that we create a dedicated politics/geopolitics forum to direct the off-topic discussions away from the main military forums. Concurrently, strictly enforce a ban on political discussions in the main military forums. If possible, a priority report button should be implemented in the main military forums to flag and report political posts, with warnings and bans swiftly meted out.

Additionally, the sign-up process should include a splash page listing the forum rules, terms, and conditions, with a special emphasis on where political discussions are allowed and where they are forbidden. If an applicant disagrees, then he/she may choose to terminate the application process. Even better, an additional splash page should greet new members when they enter the main military forums, warning them not to post political content. This splash page may go away after a number of days or weeks.

If a new member's first post in the military forum is political in nature, he or she should be banned permanently. Drop the hammer and nip it in the bud. Why take chances?

Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

One additional (minor) thought:

Maybe a special report category should be created for off-topic discussions in the main military forums. For example, when you see a political post, hit that report button, then from a pull-down menu you can choose the option "off-topic political content" or something like that. This should then move it up the priority queue for a moderator to adjudicate.

How about a report button.
Or did I miss it?