What's the point of the comment system... Thread

...when comments can just be deleted anyway?

I was under the impression this is why we had the whole damned voting in place anyway? I can't help but think that we're going back to the whole lacking credibility issue again when comments are disappearing off front page news posts.

Well, the people who control the profile/news post/whatever are free to delete comments. That was a conscious decision made by Scott so people had more control over their profiles.
What this leads to is people deleting comments they don't like. There was a case of this with the Jurassic Park mod, and the TOS was updated to reflect this issue (https://www.moddb.com/terms-of-use)
So under the TOS we can take appropriate action for any comments being unfairly deleted. IOW, if you see it happening and you're pretty sure its in breach of the TOS, shoot a staffer a message and report it. We can view the comment, and judge whether it was fairly deleted. If not, we can take whatever action we deem fit (for instance if someone has removed a dozen messages simply because they were negative, I personally find that pretty good grounds for a ban or having their deletion permissions removed). Its a catch 22. Either we have to moderate unruly messages, or we have to moderate unruly users.
But its definitely an issue that we should be coming down on VERY hard IMO

As Wraiyth said, comments are a tricky issue. The voting is mostly used for internal karma calculations, and to help you find the 'good' comments by filtering out the bad (We will be doing more around this later), but deleting is available so that profile owners can remove stupid comments like the ever popular "you suck".

However, as I brought up in a recent blog post, Mod DB doesn't delete, only meta-delete. This means if we catch any unfairly deleted comments, we can pull them back from the dead and shout at the person who did the deleting, possibly removing their ability to delete comments or even ban them completely.

That said we acknowledge there's a problem and we're looking at solutions, but as with all things it's a balancing act. We'll keep you informed. In the meantime if you see any suspected deletion of valid comments please contact us and I promise we'll have a look.

Moddb.com

Three or four comments disappeared from this news post; notably it was a comparison between Ballistic Weapons and Gunreal. Perhaps not appropriate, but valid nonetheless.

Amusingly, since the comments were put back in place, they were deleted again.

Actually, I was just dropping in to look into this. I deleted those comments that Ambershee just mentioned (comparing an early beta with a final release), and was confused when I saw them reappear multiple times. I thought the site was broken, and was just coming to the forums to research if the delete function was working or not.

I'm assuming an admin thought the comments were fair enough to remain. (fine with me)

My point-of-view is mentioned at the bottom of all my Gunreal threads over at the Epic UT forums: "...for crying out loud, PLEASE NO BICKERING ABOUT OTHER WEAPON MODS! I don't mind if you talk about them, but we all certainly DO mind if you start a war with everyone else over baseless comparisons between released mods and unreleased ones..." and then this is repeated in the beta-release thread: "Like in the other thread, I will repeat that while we enjoy talk of other weapons mods (most of which I've played to death before, and love), we DON'T enjoy flame-wars and mud-slinging about unfair comparisons (fair ones exempt), so keep it clean."

As is easy to see, Mr. Ugly Pants stabs at Gunreal's (unfinished) gore system, comparing it to a released mod, are worthy of debate, and he says almost the exact same things in every Gunreal update we do, sometimes multiple times.

He is completely against Half-Life2/Battlefield2-style movement systems with walk/sprint/stamina, and doesn't understand that Gunreal is not UT2004. I delete all comments by people who vocalize that the "UT-ness" has been removed from the game, because the game is a proof-of-concept for publishers for another game, entitled "Ground War", not UT. Thus, I quite enjoy being able to delete those posts, and keep things centered on what Gunreal is all about. Otherwise, people read those comments, and think, "Yeah, why the heck can't you double-jump, like in UT?"
Several times, I had to post this:

Dario_D wrote: Thanks for the feedback.

Btw, the movement is nearly identical to Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2, but will feel strange to UT-centric players. Bear in mind that Gunreal is NOT UT2004, and is shooting for its own thing entirely (partially created as a proof-of-concept for publishers).

Of course, to an admin just passing through, who doesn't know anything about Gunreal, it's going to look like fair comments are being deleted. As you can see [here], there's still quite a bit of fair, constructive criticism that I tolerate, because they're talking about things they don't like, which I need to think about and work on (which is why I'm doing this beta in the first place).

Edited by: Dario_D

news comments weren't deletable by the news owner in previous moddb versions though

Dario_D wrote: Actually, I was just dropping in to look into this. I deleted those comments that Ambershee just mentioned (comparing an early beta with a final release), and was confused when I saw them reappear multiple times. I thought the site was broken, and was just coming to the forums to research if the delete function was working or not.

I'm assuming an admin thought the comments were fair enough to remain. (fine with me)

My point-of-view is mentioned at the bottom of all my Gunreal threads over at the Epic UT forums: "...for crying out loud, PLEASE NO BICKERING ABOUT OTHER WEAPON MODS! I don't mind if you talk about them, but we all certainly DO mind if you start a war with everyone else over baseless comparisons between released mods and unreleased ones..." and then this is repeated in the beta-release thread: "Like in the other thread, I will repeat that while we enjoy talk of other weapons mods (most of which I've played to death before, and love), we DON'T enjoy flame-wars and mud-slinging about unfair comparisons (fair ones exempt), so keep it clean."

As is easy to see, Mr. Ugly Pants stabs at Gunreal's (unfinished) gore system, comparing it to a released mod, are worthy of debate, and he says almost the exact same things in every Gunreal update we do, sometimes multiple times.

He is completely against Half-Life2/Battlefield2-style movement systems with walk/sprint/stamina, and doesn't understand that Gunreal is not UT2004. I delete all comments by people who vocalize that the "UT-ness" has been removed from the game, because the game is a proof-of-concept for publishers for another game, entitled "Ground War", not UT. Thus, I quite enjoy being able to delete those posts, and keep things centered on what Gunreal is all about. Otherwise, people read those comments, and think, "Yeah, why the heck can't you double-jump, like in UT?"
Several times, I had to post this:

Dario_D wrote: Thanks for the feedback.

Btw, the movement is nearly identical to Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2, but will feel strange to UT-centric players. Bear in mind that Gunreal is NOT UT2004, and is shooting for its own thing entirely (partially created as a proof-of-concept for publishers).

Of course, to an admin just passing through, who doesn't know anything about Gunreal, it's going to look like fair comments are being deleted. As you can see [here], there's still quite a bit of fair, constructive criticism that I tolerate, because they're talking about things they don't like, which I need to think about and work on (which is why I'm doing this beta in the first place).

But there is a difference between deleting comments you don't like and deleting comments against the TOS, which is why the deletion system was put in place.

@Wraiyth:
I did not say anything the second time since I'm fed up of the kindergarten but if posts get undeleted by staff and then are deleted again... doesn't this qualify as breaking the TOS or even pissing-off-staffers?

Edited by: Dragonlord

It would definitely piss me off, but unfortunately I don't have comment undeletion permissions (or even permissions to view deleted comments). If it was my decision, I would have removed deletion permissions and warned any offenders. But its not my decision.

Sorry, I forgot your permission set. Nevertheless it happened recently so maybe the staff with the right permission sets should once look a bit closer at front-page news posts or the profiles of certain mods. It usually happens always with the same people so you don't have to check all profiles.

To be fair, this is probably an issue with the comment system on news posts. The idea behind being able to delete comments should probably only apply to completely irrelevant, or otherwise pointless offensive posts. If any post can be deleted by a non-admin, then the whole karma / ranking system becomes more redundant

The system should probably require authorisation of deletion of comments. It's not something to frequent (hopefully), prevents confusion, like in Dario's situation, and prevents people getting pissed off that relevant, but negative comments get wiped.

Someone wrote: But there is a difference between deleting comments you don't like and deleting comments against the TOS, which is why the deletion system was put in place.

Right, but there will be a lot of instances in which a mod author has to delete something NOT against the Terms of Service, but out of line (whether off-topic, unfair, useless, in bad taste, etc). Most modern, well-developed website with a comments system do it this way, allowing the content-posters to remove comments to their own things. The system is bound to be abused - some pathetic mods worthy of scorn will have a spotlessly clean list of comments that seem in utter worship of them - but there is also a huge deal of unfair, biased, unnecessary junk that people comment that casts a poor light on peoples' life's work, where it just isn't due.

I think the current system is the lesser of two evils, and probably the only good way to go about keeping a balance.

Edited by: Dario_D

If I have the choice between Dictatorship and Democracy, I would also choose the later since my opinion is not oppressed, right?

Democracy just means you can choose your leaders, not that you're free to have an opinion.

Doesn't this already "include" having the freedom to have your opinion about what leader you want? ( as in Dictatorship you have none )

Dragonlord wrote: Doesn't this already "include" having the freedom to have your opinion about what leader you want? ( as in Dictatorship you have none )

Aye, but you'll always have an opinion, just a matter if you have freedom of speech/press and can express that opinion.

BlckWyerve wrote: Democracy just means you can choose your leaders, not that you're free to have an opinion.

and sadly this is also true, dam patriot act.. The Patriots are in control! noooooo...

--

|Apex|Email|

Dario_D wrote:

Someone wrote: But there is a difference between deleting comments you don't like and deleting comments against the TOS, which is why the deletion system was put in place.

Right, but there will be a lot of instances in which a mod author has to delete something NOT against the Terms of Service, but out of line (whether off-topic, unfair, useless, in bad taste, etc). Most modern, well-developed website with a comments system do it this way, allowing the content-posters to remove comments to their own things. The system is bound to be abused - some pathetic mods worthy of scorn will have a spotlessly clean list of comments that seem in utter worship of them - but there is also a huge deal of unfair, biased, unnecessary junk that people comment that casts a poor light on peoples' life's work, where it just isn't due.

I think the current system is the lesser of two evils, and probably the only good way to go about keeping a balance.

Censorship isn't the lesser of two evils. There is a voting system in place where those off-topic, unfair, useless or bad taste comments are used - if those can just be rubbed, then the whole system is redundant.

First of all, let's not get into a democracy/dictatorship debate, since Mod DB doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories.

We are primarily a community driven site, and we give the community tools to manage their own presence and PR with us providing backup, editorial support, promotion and specialist skills. However, in any site with such a large community-driven aspect there are bound to be some idiotic users who get some ray of joy into their otherwise pathetic lives by posting crap on the internet. Mod DB uses two forms of moderation to combat this:

Firstly, active moderation is where new content is put into a queue for us to distinctly say 'yes' or 'no' to. New mods, addons and games use this moderation system to help keep the listings clean. News and other article content uses a variation in which the content is tentatively given a 'yes' automatically - which displays it in groups etc but not on the main pages - and we then actively moderate it into the 'firm yes', 'tentative yes' or 'no' categories. The exact mechanisms for each vary between straight approval, archival, deletion, recategorisation and a few others; most of which you don't need to know about.

Secondly, reactive moderation is what we use for comments and the forums. Here, all content is assumed to be good until someone explicitly says otherwise. This means conversation can be fast without needing to wait for moderators to approve your posts. It also, in 'owned' venues such as mod profiles and news posts, means we give the owners the ability to moderate what is going on as part of the tools we provide to them. It is a comment venue for their content, ergo they can decide what needs to be deleted. We don't know every nuance of a mod, so we can't decide which comments are useless; nor do we have the manpower to even begin to moderate all the comment pages. Forums are by their nature a restricted area in which we can easily keep an eye on activity whereas there are over 285,000 pages on which comments can be made, with hundreds being made every day - it's simply not possible to actively or even efficiently reactively moderate.

Personally I'm in favour of going back to the voting system and a decent 'report comment' infrastructure, but we have so much content it's simply not easy to do. I'm not saying we have it right, or even that we have it close, but I personally think that with 285,421 commentable pages we're doing pretty well given the number of complaints we receive.

All your comments in this thread - by the way - have been taken on board and we're working on an improved system.