Working Topic: Chat, chat users, and message moderation

[RFC Committee]

Reply to this thread with your ideas for this sprint's topic.

[dvdrw]

I'm hoping we can get to writing up the actual RFC(s) by the weekend. Here's my email I sent out
last time this topic came around:

We all know intuitively what chat is and how it works. Sadly, that intuition, more often than not, differs, and just gets people angry.
This is the topic for hammering out the details.

Chat users can either be logged-in users, or people with randomly assigned troll IDs.
Chat users can have a tag and username colour assigned to them.

Since trolls are randomly assigned, it's technically impossible to have any persistent data on them.

Users can chat either locally or globally. Their messages are marked so.
This means they can either see _only_ the messages in their chat room, or messages from _all_ rooms, respectively.

Arbitrary chat rooms are allowed.

The chat client can filter/not display _any_ message it pleases.
However, the chat server can decide to drop messages only in certain scenarios:

• The user exceeds an interaction limit (i.e. gets rate-limited. Necessary because of technical flaw)
• Messages sent by users that are muted inside a room are only _marked_ as muted.

In both cases, the user sending the message must be notified in some, shape, way, or form that their message isn't subject to ordinary server rules.
(Concretely, for a rate-limit, you can have a cooldown timer; or for a mute, you can have an info message show up somewhere)

Chat rooms for which exists a users whose usernames matches the room name are 'owned'. The user whose username matches is the 'owner'.

Owners of chat rooms can curate a list of usernames which are _muted_. This list is publicly accessible by all chat members.
Muted users can send messages as regular, but their messages are marked as _muted_. Clients (read: other users) can then choose to filter out these messages.

Users who have had users on their mute list are marked as having used the functionality. This mark cannot be removed.

User chat interaction is limited by default. Room owners have the option to set the sensitivity of this rate limiter, as well as disable URIs rendering as clickable links.

In my opinion, staff moderators should have at least read access to a room's configuration for both rate-limits and mute lists.

I'm afraid Dispatch's involvement with this is inevitable and necessary.

As for user mutes, I've come to a realisation: since channel owners can mute individual users, they can, in theory, write a script that could use that
individual mute option to automate mutes. In practice, this means that the slope is indeed slippery, and that's a battle not worth fighting, imo.

The newest, novel feature Dispatch 'promised' was channel moderators. I'm indifferent to the idea, so long the list of channel mods is publicly
visible, the list of muted users is public, and mutes are opt-out.

Now, I know Dispatch has (probably) argued that channel mutes shouldn't be opt-outable because then it offloads site-wide chat moderation onto
the particular streamer; e.g. a chat user spams CP or something. This isn't viable for several reasons:

• What about the case when a channel owner _doesn't_ mute those users? What about whispers?
• How is this different from platforms like Twitch putting pressure via onus on channel owners to handle their site rules for them?

Channel mutes are only tangential to 'illicit' user chat messages.

On 12/10/2020 13:48, RFC Committee wrote:

Reply to this thread with your ideas for this sprint's topic.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RFC Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rfccommittee...@bitwave.tv.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bitwave.tv/d/msgid/rfccommittee/fafabc44-2e20-4625-9d48-7cde26c67c5en%40bitwave.tv.

[Senator Funstein]

A couple questions for clarification:

Currently, when a user's message does not say [L] or [G], what does that mean?

• "The user exceeds an interaction limit (i.e. gets rate-limited. Necessary because of technical flaw)" Isn't this only true for the short rate limit? Also, I wouldn't call it a flaw, but a limitation. 

"Owners of chat rooms can curate a list of usernames which are _muted_. This list is publicly accessible by all chat members. Muted users can send messages as regular, but their messages are marked as _muted_. Clients (read: other users) can then choose to filter out these messages." 

Dispatch has stated his displeasure in making this part of the regular bitwave client. He has stated that it would be easier to get his consent to having lite chat be allowed to display _muted_ tagged messages. Also, I would change "This list is publicly accessible by all chat members." to "Present members of a chatroom who are muted should be identified in the viewer list with some straight-forward indicator." Dispatch has also expressed more openness to having this as well. 

"Users who have had users on their mute list are marked as having used the functionality. This mark cannot be removed." Not needed. This seems like punishment. Site should not be taking a side like that. If an owner wipes their mute list, what is the point in pointing out that they muted people in the past? 

"In my opinion, staff moderators should have at least read access to a room's configuration for both rate-limits and mute lists. " I think this RFC is a perfect place to also define "Site moderator" and "room moderator" and what the limits are to their respective abilities to regulate streams and chat rooms. 

 I think this may be premature, but it is important that room moderators be immune from mutes. I also think we should consider adding a "timeout" option to the room moderator toolset and giving the owner the option to limit moderator power to timeouts only. 

[Senator Funstein]

Per your presumption of a Dispatch argument: 

"

Now, I know Dispatch has (probably) argued that channel mutes shouldn't be opt-outable because then it offloads site-wide chat moderation onto
the particular streamer; e.g. a chat user spams CP or something. This isn't viable for several reasons:

• What about the case when a channel owner _doesn't_ mute those users? What about whispers?
• How is this different from platforms like Twitch putting pressure via onus on channel owners to handle their site rules for them?

"

I think there's a better solution for handling the naughty link problem. It might be worth discussing as part of this RFC. It can be best described as word filtering of the unique part of the URL for a reported video. 

like lets say this link was to something illegal (it is not, it is the ACD hearing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnsT6xlAx4

and I, as a room owner saw this in a message in my chat. I could click the username for the usual panel of Janny tools but there would also be a "ban url" button that would ban any message that contains "UnnsT6xlAx4" in my chat. This would be for imgur, streamable, and basically any site that uses these random characters in their unique content URLs. 

[dvdrw]

> Currently, when a user's message does not say [L] or [G], what does that mean?

It means they're an absolute Litechad Thundercock. (Local/Global setting isn't verified or sanitized; i.e. bug)

> Isn't this only true for the short rate limit? Also, I wouldn't call it a flaw, but a limitation.

The short rate, yes. It's essentially a slow mode, and the max limit for which should -- I think -- be scaled to the number of viewers you have.

>  Not needed. This seems like punishment. Site should not be taking a side like that. If an owner wipes their mute list, what is the point in pointing out that they muted people in the past?

I agree with this; Having a public mute list should be 'mark' enough.

> Having lite chat be allowed to display _muted_ tagged messages
I will personally write an extension for every major browser that will introduce all litechat (i.e. phatchat+) functionality to the site if this happens.

> I think this RFC is a perfect place to also define "Site moderator" and "room moderator" and what the limits are to their respective abilities to regulate streams and chat rooms.

That's the idea.

As for your idea for blocking 'naughty links', it sounds just like word filters, which I dislike (though I have to concede would be technically possible with individual mutes).
In any case, this only solves things for individual streamers, not the platform, making the argument fall flat. It's just going to turn into a web of ineffective filters making it miserable for everyone.

[Senator Funstein]

thinking more about it, i think URL filters like what i described should be up to the site mods only. I mean we really are only talking about CP and like terrorism or whatever, right? I think site mods would have to vow to not go further than what the TOS requires of them. 

[dvdrw]

You know, having an audit log with justifications for each global mod action might not be a bad idea.

[dvdrw]

So we know what's a:

• Chat User (troll or registered)
  
• Channel Owner
• Local/Global
• Rate Limiter
• Ignore vs. Mute

We have yet to talk about/concur on a few things, though.

Namely, I think we all agree mutes are an opt-out, and there is an easily accessible public list of muted users in a channel.
We have yet to talk about possible timeouts and channel moderators (and their powers).

We haven't even mentioned whispers so far. (i.e. should they ping, you stick around in a separate chat window waiting for you, etc)

And lastly, can site moderators change the configuration for individual channels, add site-wide rules/moderate, etc.

[Senator Funstein]

Is there a list of who is a site moderator and the process by which they become one? it might help to know that before signing off on their privileges. 

[Senator Funstein]

I agree that muted messages should exist and be tagged. I don't know if dispatch is realistically going to allow them all to just be turned on while using the main chat client. Letting litechat have access to them I think would make all parties happy and wouldn't take away from the meaningfulness of a new streamer executing a mute in their channel. 

[DOOM TUBE]

Namely, I think we all agree mutes are an opt-out, and there is an easily accessible public list of muted users in a channel.

Channel mutes should be opt-out, and all muted messages should be included in the Global chat by default. I agree there should be a easily viewed list of who was jannied.

Should the front page channel's chat include muted messages? I would like to see an unfiltered front page global chat.

We have yet to talk about possible timeouts and channel moderators (and their powers).

A channel mod has the options to

• Timeout user for 30 seconds
  
• Timeout user for 5 minutes
• Mute user
• Create polls
• Set channel motd (just an idea)
  A channel owner has the option to assign a user to be a channel mod
  The owner can assign 3 permissions to a channel mod to give them access to that feature
  
• Timeouts
• Mutes
• Polls

We haven't even mentioned whispers so far. (i.e. should they ping, you stick around in a separate chat window waiting for you, etc)

Whispers and messages can easily be lost overnight. Maybe channel owners/mods can configure to increase chat history?
Whispers should not ping imo, because if you are streaming with bitwave chat sounds they will know if you were @'ed.

I have no particular ideas for whispers outside of expanding it into a DM system kind of like a simplified facebook.
I am not sure of the morals or policies surrounding chat logging or deletion, right now whispers are inaccessible after chat scrolls

And lastly, can site moderators change the configuration for individual channels, add site-wide rules/moderate, etc.

Are there any site moderators now? I am not sure what scope of power they have. At this time I think it should be reserved to the devs/system admins.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:58 PM dvdrw <dv...@bitwave.tv> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bitwave.tv/d/msgid/rfccommittee/76446646-07bc-4434-4c2f-342494224dd8%40bitwave.tv.

[DOOM TUBE]

 A channel mod can only be muted/timeout by the channel owner

[Rudolph Branchies]

"

A channel mod can only be muted/timeout by the channel owner

"

yeah I think that is perfect. 

[Fea...@cock.li]

Are there any site moderators now? I am not sure what scope of power they have. At this time I think it should be reserved to the devs/system admins.

As it stands I believe 'Site Moderators' and 'System Admins' are synonymous and there are 4-5 people currently holding that role afaik.

Those with Admin Tools access can Disconnect streams, Reset streamkeys, Enable transcoding, Toggle NSFW, and send Fireworks/Banner notifications.

Regarding audit logs, I believe they should be implemented in some way to capture Site Moderator and Channel Owner/Moderator actions. Regardless of what is made accessible to all users, at least having their actions viewable to all those equal or above them in a hierarchy of Site Mod/Channel Owner/Channel Mod to provide some accountability and transparency - especially regarding actions that affect ones ability to chat.

[DOOM TUBE]

i like that idea of having a public moderator log/page
it could capture channel and site mod actions

[DOOM TUBE]

there's nothing stopping a spez type situation. reddit spez shadow edited users comments and only got caught from discord logs.

[dvdrw]

I think we're ready to try out writing RFC drafts. Mark and doomtube get "Whispers as Private Communication Via Chat", and I and Hitla get "Chat Messages".

Please hand them in no later than the 22nd. :)

[Jim]

With respect to Whispers, are they expected to be covered by mutes as well or are they unaffected?

I'm working on the rough draft documenting and formalizing Whispers.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bitwave.tv/d/msgid/rfccommittee/1f6083cf-4e33-dd61-40b6-9966ddad08d7%40bitwave.tv.

[dvdrw]

Dispatch said he's writing the drafts for/with moderation, so you probably shouldn't cover that.

Personally, I think they should be unaffected. You can ignore the person, and make mutes count as ignores on the frontend anyways -- also something Dispatch should be writing.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bitwave.tv/d/msgid/rfccommittee/0719a4f8-7bdd-6d71-0d30-a168ac043c69%40gmail.com.

[Senator Funstein]

I don't think making mutes count as ignores is a good idea.