Automated Flag for Moderation

[stubbo-admin]

In addition to Wils nice addition of thread muting, we will soon be releasing an automated post flagging moderation tool. 

This tool will review threads when certain trigger words are included, will pass the content of the post to an AI based tool for assessment against a number of trigger categories, and based on the assessment will flag for human moderation if deemed appropriate before it goes live on the site.

Given we have very very few people moderators, this gives the site a mechanism to try and apply some sensible moderation.

The categories moderation can cover are:

• Harassment
• Harassment/Threatening
• Sexual
• Hate
• Hate/Threatening
• Illegal
• Illegal/Violent
• Self Harm/Intent
• Self Harm/Instructional
• Self Harm
• Sexual/Minors
• Violence
• Violence/Graphic

Not all will be enabled while we try this out.

We will initially set the threshold for intervention pretty high, and as stated it will only apply to posts that contain trigger words. There will inevitably be some fine tuning required as time goes on and feedback will be welcome as always.

If a poster posts something that the tool decides requires moderation (review by a site mod), you'll get a notification and it won't go live to the site until it gets reviewed and approved.

As always with WHO the goal is to be light touch...and before anyone asks, 'cսnt' will not be a trigger word. 

There are also options for us to target all posts on certain threads or all posts by certain posters (though these won't be enabled at launch).

Hopefully this will be something that fills the gap of active moderation that is something we've struggled with for a while now.

[THUNDERCLINT]

Has anyone managed to get a flag yet?


 

If anyone has it'll be joyo describing his last holiday to Cambodia.

[Nutsin]

Sounds like VAR 2.0


 

[honky cat]

Has anyone managed to get a flag yet?

 

[Nutsin]

"This tool will review threads when certain trigger words are included, will pass the content of the post to an AI based tool for assessment against a number of trigger categories, and based on the assessment will flag for human moderation if deemed appropriate before it goes live on the site."

"If a poster posts something that the tool decides requires moderation (review by a site mod), you'll get a notification and it won't go live to the site until it gets reviewed and approved."


 

LOL

[BRANDED]

Tool being the operative word
 

[stubbo-admin]

"This tool will review threads when certain trigger words are included, will pass the content of the post to an AI based tool for assessment against a number of trigger categories, and based on the assessment will flag for human moderation if deemed appropriate before it goes live on the site."

"If a poster posts something that the tool decides requires moderation (review by a site mod), you'll get a notification and it won't go live to the site until it gets reviewed and approved."

 

[Nutsin]

AI FLAGGING not moderating makes sense the WHO mods wont be too overbearing , Yon need a hard skin to post on this forum to start with

Exactly this....

There's a lot of reaction on this thread at the moment that is assuming this is gonna mean you can't say that "Stubbo is an absolute facist cսnt" or phrases to that effect:

That sentence as an example ranks as follows:

(The AI returns a % score that is on the basis of how certain it is that content should get reviewed for one of the categories)....and we decide what the level is that we should consider reviewing it:

harassment: 89.22%

harassment/threatening: 0.09%

sexual: 0.29%

hate: 4.44%

hate/threatening: 0%

illicit: 0%

illicit/violent: 0%

self-harm/intent: 0%

self-harm/instructions: 0.02%

self-harm: 0.05%

sexual/minors: 0%

violence: 0.06%

violence/graphic: 0%

Our benchmark for harassment would initially be set at 96% or greater required to trigger review by a human to decide if the post should go live or not....and would also have to include a trigger word to warrant it being checked in the first place (which the above doesn't anyway).

Here's another example that would pass with no issues at all and was the sort of thing referenced earlier:

"Let's hope the rent boys are off their game on Saturday and they can stick the blue flag up their arse. If the yid cunts lose we're right back in the hunt to stay up.".

harassment: 88.99%

harassment/threatening: 1.99%

sexual: 2.05%

hate: 57.49%

hate/threatening: 0.34%

illicit: 0.38%

illicit/violent: 0%

self-harm/intent: 0.02%

self-harm/instructions: 0.02%

self-harm: 0.05%

sexual/minors: 0.01%

violence: 1.63%

violence/graphic: 0%

So you can hopefully see this is not the end of what you'd expect to be pretty normal on WHO, and also that a post has to be pretty beyond the line before it would get flagged for one of the mods to review.

And at this point, it's just a trial to see if it helps our the VERY SMALL mod team who can't keep an eye on all threads.

As you were, you cunts.

Instead of telling us all just how redundant it's gonna be and trying to explain what it won't do, why not tell us what it will do?

[stubbo-admin]

AI FLAGGING not moderating makes sense the WHO mods wont be too overbearing , Yon need a hard skin to post on this forum to start with

Exactly this....

There's a lot of reaction on this thread at the moment that is assuming this is gonna mean you can't say that "Stubbo is an absolute facist cսnt" or phrases to that effect:

That sentence as an example ranks as follows:

(The AI returns a % score that is on the basis of how certain it is that content should get reviewed for one of the categories)....and we decide what the level is that we should consider reviewing it:

harassment: 89.22%

harassment/threatening: 0.09%

sexual: 0.29%

hate: 4.44%

hate/threatening: 0%

illicit: 0%

illicit/violent: 0%

self-harm/intent: 0%

self-harm/instructions: 0.02%

self-harm: 0.05%

sexual/minors: 0%

violence: 0.06%

violence/graphic: 0%

Our benchmark for harassment would initially be set at 96% or greater required to trigger review by a human to decide if the post should go live or not....and would also have to include a trigger word to warrant it being checked in the first place (which the above doesn't anyway).

Here's another example that would pass with no issues at all and was the sort of thing referenced earlier:

"Let's hope the rent boys are off their game on Saturday and they can stick the blue flag up their arse. If the yid cunts lose we're right back in the hunt to stay up.".

harassment: 88.99%

harassment/threatening: 1.99%

sexual: 2.05%

hate: 57.49%

hate/threatening: 0.34%

illicit: 0.38%

illicit/violent: 0%

self-harm/intent: 0.02%

self-harm/instructions: 0.02%

self-harm: 0.05%

sexual/minors: 0.01%

violence: 1.63%

violence/graphic: 0%

So you can hopefully see this is not the end of what you'd expect to be pretty normal on WHO, and also that a post has to be pretty beyond the line before it would get flagged for one of the mods to review.

And at this point, it's just a trial to see if it helps our the VERY SMALL mod team who can't keep an eye on all threads.

As you were, you cunts.

[nychammer]

This is a load of Bollocks. The plain peaking and 'Frank' exchanging of views is what makes this site what it is. If you want moderation or are easily offended go and read KUMB.

[Westham67]

AI FLAGGING not moderating makes sense the WHO mods wont be too overbearing , Yon need a hard skin to post on this forum to start with

[THUNDERCLINT]

Great, a site for sensitive lesbians only. FUCKING BRILLIANT 

WHO is now the ginger freak the little blonde sort in Landman has to share a dorm with.

The ginger freak also has a smelly ferret.

[El Scorchio]

I’d imagine this is barely going to affect anything or be noticeable. 

To be fair I am far more interested in just talking about West Ham on here than just coming on to call people paedos and rapists and such though. 

[BRANDED]

I'd be more worried if this was being done at the behest ("suggestion") of the site advertisers/sponsors.

Insanity rather than sanitation is what WHO is all about and always has been.

For those preferring a "pipe & slippers" approach, there's plenty of other West Ham websites offering that where you will be forever protected against the inane and irrelevant (that have always been a part of WHO).

As for slow updates of Page 1 posts, who's fault is that, ffs! The site is basically a blank canvas and relies - like most posters, it seems - on other users posting "interesting stuff".

However, if it is site sponsors applying pressure, it's probably a good time to pass the hat around and ask users to self-sponsor the place.

A bag of sand a year between those willing to pay should cover it.

I would say that WHO has the option to be irrational or counter to cultural norms. The internet is full of sanitised, corporate wokery. Obvs if the corporate police are demanding this then say it. 

[BRANDED]

Isnt this a bit cuntish? 

[Malayammer]

I haven’t posted for years . Although I think I’ve been a member for some 20 years . 

Although a much used cliche “ back in the day “
there was a host of , very funny , intellectual, intelligent and common sense types who didn’t feel he need to ‘fun police ‘ themselves .Red lines didn’t exist simply because everyone had the ability to realise that nothing was personal . 

the night shift , the day shift , Surrey crew etc etc just accepted that any abuse was tongue in cheek. 

Fuck me ( AI moderation no doubt) to tell us how to act on one of the last bastions of real West Ham types is the epitome of all that is wrong in modern football . 

rant over 
 

[Chip Shop Charlie]

As long as you can still call a cսnt a cսnt does it really matter?

[Come On You Irons]

To counter this, the stats show that January has been the busiest month on the site in the three different metrics: the number of people posting, the daily total number of posts, the amount of different topics people are engaging with. 

Add to that a day in January this year broke the record for number of posts on a day (Nottingham forest game) and all but 1 of the top 10 days for engagement have been this season. 

Certainly not dying. 

There might be relatively more traffic but come on, there is about a dozen active posting members of the forum and routinely the first page of this board has on it threads last updated a week ago.

The forum is dying.

If you read my post again. Your claim is directly contradicting the evidence. It's not the traffic to the site that is being measured, it's engagement. That means the number of posts, the number of people posting and the amount of different topics being posted. All three measures have been rising and peaked as recently as January. 

What I can't claim is these measures are higher than they were in 2006, granted. But the current trajectory over the last couple of years is clear, it's on the up and not the down.

Well that's a given. The old site was so broken by the end that it was barely usabl and regularly crashed on match days. So naturally a site that works is going to generate more traffic than an awful site that was barely usable and which so many people ultimately gave up with.

[Hammer I am]

All this can be avoided if you give literally 5 or so posters their own sub forum where they can call each other nonce or raspberry or shout MAGA every 5 minutes ad infentum till they peg it.

Everyone else at least uses puts a bit of effort into insulting eachother and shouldn't be penalised by the lack of imagination of the usual suspects 

[,]

I notice that missing from the stubbo list is an automatic flag for lies.

Is this because lies do not matter, that lying is such common currency it’s irrelevant or even that it’s a mistake to take a liar’s words literally?

[wils]

This is all too little, too late.

If the moderators on here actually did their roles over the years then people wouldn't have given up on this site in droves as it descended into an endless political and personal bickering forum.

It became so dull and boring with a small handful of posters chasing each other around on forums and inanely and endlessly bickering.

I am convinced this site should just be put out of its misery now.

To counter this, the stats show that January has been the busiest month on the site in the three different metrics: the number of people posting, the daily total number of posts, the amount of different topics people are engaging with. 

Add to that a day in January this year broke the record for number of posts on a day (Nottingham forest game) and all but 1 of the top 10 days for engagement have been this season. 

Certainly not dying. 

There might be relatively more traffic but come on, there is about a dozen active posting members of the forum and routinely the first page of this board has on it threads last updated a week ago.

The forum is dying.

If you read my post again. Your claim is directly contradicting the evidence. It's not the traffic to the site that is being measured, it's engagement. That means the number of posts, the number of people posting and the amount of different topics being posted. All three measures have been rising and peaked as recently as January. 

What I can't claim is these measures are higher than they were in 2006, granted. But the current trajectory over the last couple of years is clear, it's on the up and not the down.

[Mike Oxsaw]

I'd be more worried if this was being done at the behest ("suggestion") of the site advertisers/sponsors.

Insanity rather than sanitation is what WHO is all about and always has been.

For those preferring a "pipe & slippers" approach, there's plenty of other West Ham websites offering that where you will be forever protected against the inane and irrelevant (that have always been a part of WHO).

As for slow updates of Page 1 posts, who's fault is that, ffs! The site is basically a blank canvas and relies - like most posters, it seems - on other users posting "interesting stuff".

However, if it is site sponsors applying pressure, it's probably a good time to pass the hat around and ask users to self-sponsor the place.

A bag of sand a year between those willing to pay should cover it.

[XKhammer]

I wondering posting "they/it/he/she are a raspberry" is ok?

[Come On You Irons]

This is all too little, too late.

If the moderators on here actually did their roles over the years then people wouldn't have given up on this site in droves as it descended into an endless political and personal bickering forum.

It became so dull and boring with a small handful of posters chasing each other around on forums and inanely and endlessly bickering.

I am convinced this site should just be put out of its misery now.

To counter this, the stats show that January has been the busiest month on the site in the three different metrics: the number of people posting, the daily total number of posts, the amount of different topics people are engaging with. 

Add to that a day in January this year broke the record for number of posts on a day (Nottingham forest game) and all but 1 of the top 10 days for engagement have been this season. 

Certainly not dying. 

There might be relatively more traffic but come on, there is about a dozen active posting members of the forum and routinely the first page of this board has on it threads last updated a week ago.

The forum is dying.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Let's get a grip on our pronouns too. We can have a thread where everyone can say how they'd like to be addressed to save confusion.

For example.
Taakashi Mike - He
Mike Oxsaw - He
Sir Alf - He
Comeonyouirons - self congratulatory twat
Nurse Ratched - She
Nutsin - He




 

Don’t you mean He/she for Oxsaw?

I believe that the term you're looking for is "They".

Should enhance people's abilities to still fire off an obvious insult without employing triggering words.


HTH

[Nutsin]

Let's get a grip on our pronouns too. We can have a thread where everyone can say how they'd like to be addressed to save confusion.

For example.
Taakashi Mike - He
Mike Oxsaw - He
Sir Alf - He
Comeonyouirons - self congratulatory twat
Nurse Ratched - She
Nutsin - He


 

Don’t you mean He/she for Oxsaw?