| | sfguyyy Jan 29 |
| | AyasImmuneSystm Jan 29 The guidelines require the user be present in all profile photos. When you add requirements like face, recognizable, identifiable to the guidelines, you are making up your own personal rules - going beyond the guidelines. I'm fine with you having and applying your own personal rules - just don't expect all of us to agree or cooperate with your hijinx.
You complain that your moderation decisions would be pointless if users are free to trivially deceive you by being in the photo in an unrecognizable or unidentifiable manner. I sympathize with your dilemma, but I cannot release you from your personally constructed conundrum. For example, what if I told you that in a massive conspiracy, say, Bradley Manning's feet are inside of all the shoe pictures in hundreds of OKC male profiles. This would actually be a violation in every case that wasn't Bradley's personal profile. However, as volunteer moderators, OKC has given us guidelines that tell us to leave all those shoe pictures alone, unless we have other evidence of the conspiracy. OKC has written the guidelines to say, in effect, "We don't care if you can't tell whose feet are in those shoes. Leave them alone, because it sure looks like the user is present." We can't recognize the feet inside those shoes, the photo is not otherwise a violation, we leave them alone. We can't identify the feet inside those shoes, the photo is not otherwise a violation, we leave them alone. A careful reading shows that the OKC guidelines don't ask us to be 90% sure the photo is the user. The OKC guidelines don't ask us to be sure the user cannot trivially deceive us. Instead, the guidelines ask us to say if the user is present or not present. I, personally, see this as a binary plausibility standard, which is far easier to apply (and comply with) than an identifiability or recognizability standard. Again, you can add all the extra stuff to your own moderation that you please - some people wrongly require faces. (shrug) Just don't expect all of us to agree or cooperate with your hijinx.
|
| | CountingConures Jan 29 For some reason, I was made a mod less than 24 hours ago. I've already lost interest in it. While I've seen a few legitimate reports, most of them look to be from people with way too much time on their hands straining to find technical violations of the rules, and some of the mod comments are no better. Flagging and moderation should be about making sure the site doesn't become one of those trashy adult scam sites that are everywhere, not getting bothered because a real user with a real profile and 10 other good photos has one with their pet or a blurry face. There's a difference between preventing a slippery slope, and just being a rules lawyer with too much free time. |
| | sfguyyy Jan 29
First of all, the vast majority of mods probably rarely comment on the flags, so you're only seeing what constitutes the "loudmouths" in the comments. Lastly - you should be grateful for all those people with "too much free time", because they are a crucial part of keeping the scammers and spammers at bay here, despite the hand-wringing over things like abstract profile photo rules.
|
| | vector010 Jan 29 For a little humor here in flagmod though, I just reported one of my first messages ever on here. I state in my profile that I'm a volunteer mod for OKC, and yet a "cam girl" actually messaged me then attempted to get to view "her" cam. I think sfguyyy has a point. I know I rarely comment on flags unless people are really getting things wrong. Like when I see a bunch of comments about GIS hits and all the GIS hits I find are for the user's profile on things like myspace. |
| | sandyvs Jan 29
That's not always true, as Vector just pointed out, and I have stated in previous posts. (The loudmouths part) |
| | AyasImmuneSystm Jan 29 I'm with sfguyyy on the loudmouths. Most of the flagmod comments that say "ecu" or "nudity" are just plain wrong, no matter how many mods loudly proclaim "ecu" or "nudity." Previous moderator comments are next-to-useless for me in deciding on the current case, because the comments are too often unresearched hogwash. Comments can be generally useful in educating subsequent moderators, in theory. |
| | sfguyyy Jan 29 I find some of the comments useful catalysts in helping me narrow down the evidence. For example, if someone states that someone has stolen a pic of some pornstar and names the specific pornstar, it makes it way easier to corroborate the stolen pic than if I had to do all the research from scratch. If someone gives evidence of the profile being wholly lifted from somewhere else and provides a URL, same thing. It's a pity that probably 70%+ of the comments aren't that useful. But like anything else, whether it's reviews on Amazon or Yelp, or some twit making up some imaginary drama in some random forum thread, the key skill required is the ability to discriminate between fact/fiction by using your own noggin rather than taking everything at face-value.
|
| | AyasImmuneSystm Jan 29 Yup. What sfguyyy said. |
| | caroline_lua Jan 30 Indeed. I've said it before. The comments are 85% childish loudmouthing, 15% useful in directing you somewhere to make you own educated decision about how to vote (ie, the porn star references). Granted, I just completely made up that bullshit statistic, but based on my observations, the comments are useless unless they are playful and non-offensive, which is good for the entertainment of the mod community, keeping us engaged (if they are serving a valid purpose, then even better - yay! A mod acting like an adult). I feel like far too many mods use the comments to denigrate users and other mods, and yes..I DO read them, because it's like the car crash rubberneck syndrome and I am indeed human, but I rarely use them to make a decision regarding how to vote. |
| | pauli133 Jan 31 comments are where new flagmods pick up the customs, standards, and prejudices of the community. If you don't like the comments, make better ones. |
| | sandyvs Jan 31 Not necessarily^ We're not all sheeple. |
| | pauli133 Jan 31 If you don't learn based on the actions of those around you, engaged in similar activites... you've got bigger problems. |
| | -WhiskeyTangoF- Feb 1 Still seeing doubles of items. Yes, I have been drinking. No, the duplicates are not related to my BAC. Anyone know what's up with this? (I'm using Firefox for my browser) |
| | AyasImmuneSystm Feb 1 Chrome has doubles too - getting sick of them |
| | Creativity001 Feb 2 I'm getting trebles now, first a one-two, then the 3rd some time later.......
VERY DULL. |
| | AyasImmuneSystm Feb 2 Yup. I'm voting "Can't tell" on everything after the first time from now on. They need to fix this or tell us why they cannot, says I. |
| | pauli133 Feb 2 if you see a double, navigate to moderation again. usually gets you a fresh report. if you're not sure... do it again. |
| | Side--Effect Feb 3 This is a test. This function of OkCupid is testing the Emergency Modcast System. This is only a test. If this had been an actual emergency the picture you just saw twice may have been followed by official information, news or instructions at the whim of those in charge of the test. |
| | oneaussie Feb 4 just wanted to be the 1000th comment in this wonderful forum
|
This has been covered repeatedly now.
"Identifiability" or "recognizability" does not necessarily require a face. But people still need to have some indication you are actually depicted in the pic, and that the pic does not instead depict someone or something else, like Dolly Parton, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Cruise, your infant son, your pet turtle, or a speck of dust.