New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow admin to censor public proposal #662
Comments
I'll pick this one up! |
How about just routing all edits through admin review, like initial proposal submission? This will prevent bad content from ever appearing from the site, at the cost of more admin work. Admin work can be made more productive to some extent with a convenient diff viewer. |
When we were originally implementing censoring we talked about whether each public edit needed to be reviewed by admins. We came to the conclusion that they didn't. It would be a lot of additional work for the admins and I think it would be a premature optimization. If it ever became a problem we could address it. |
Pretty close to finishing things up on the backend for this. It's going to take a few GUI changes to fully implement though. Writing up an issue for that now |
Another discussin here: unlike unvetted content which never makes it to public repo, vetted content that was later censored will forever be accessible in the public repo. It's not supposed to. The asymmetry here is that both unvetting and censoring content is based on the same moderation rules, but the latter stays available in the public repo. There's no way to solve it except manually approve all edits by admins. There are several related issues:
|
Good writeup @xaur . After getting more familiar with how Pi and the Git repo work together, I don't think there's any workaround this aside from changing the system so that admins have to approve edits. While I see the benefit of implementing an additional fee for edits, I can see it being troublesome for users who are NOT trying to game the revision system (Which I imagine will be the vast majority). I think we should have another discussion on this in the #politeia channel to see whether or not admins are open to this extra responsibility / work |
I was also going to suggest to give the fees to admins for their work. More review work done = more fees collected. A downside is an easy abuse vector where admins directly or indirectly submit multiple proposals to review them and get paid. Not sure if this is a concerns since admins are carefully selected due to the power (and responsibilities) they have. An alternative is to pay for admins work from Treasury just like everyone else. |
@lukebp I think a new issue may need to be created if this functionality is still desired, or perhaps another discussion needs to be had in #politieia As of now, I believe there is no way to allow vetted props to transition into censored props, that is without having admins to review every edit |
@camus-code yeah, I think we need to put this on hold for right now. We'll need to add this feature at some point, but doing so will require further discussion. We'll keep this issue open for reference. |
Closing due to inactivity and no way to move forward. |
I'll just leave here couple more ideas to address bad edits. There is some middle ground between having admins to manually check each edit and having all edits go directly into public repo unchecked. First tool that can be used is to delay the publishing of edits into the public repo by say 8 hours. If an admin is available to review the edit he can either approve it (which publishes it sooner) or block it (which prevents it from ever reaching the public repo). If no admin action is taken, the edit is published automatically after the deadline of 8 hours. This gives admins a window to review and block bad edits. Second tool is to make pending edits publicly viewable. If anybody watching the stream of edits notices bad content he can raise the alarm and notify the admins to block the edit. |
Admins need to have the ability to censor a public proposal in the case where a proposal author edits the proposal and the new version doesn't adhere to Politeia proposal guidelines.
The full discussion can be viewed here:
https://matrix.to/#/!VFRvyndKpzcLrVslQD:decred.org/$15468747479815IPJTv:decred.org?via=decred.org&via=matrix.org&via=zettaport.com
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: