Sounds very, very interesting. I specially like the fact that trolls might be tempted to acquire a trustworthiness score so they can troll better - this would force them to HELP the game for a while! HA!

A small suggestion: since trolls are kinda predictable, the algorithm that chooses which panels undergo the "civic duty" process should take some elements into acount. Any description that says "black face" or "kfc" is a good candidate to this. Scaning drawings for patterns is likely harder than scanning descriptions, but if the panel is composed mainly of black and red... Well, maybe this is impossible (too hard to implement) or pointless (trolls create new stuff) - just a thought.

Also, VERY IMPORTANT: If you get the "civic duty" on a game you shouldn't get to play it, even if you skipped your duty.

Couple things: I think the idea of users reviewing panels could be interesting, but maybe it could be done after something is skipped and reported once, and done voluntarily. So, say you wanted to check reported panels, you'd click a button to do just that. It would only be available to people with a certain metric, like you're suggesting. I would totally do this when I'm somewhere where I can't play, like on my phone, but I don't know that I'd want it mixed in with regular gameplay because then it might feel like a chore.

Another possibility: when you skip + report, you have a selection of reasons to check off (obscene language, NSFW, trolling, etc). When you receive a panel that's been skipped and reported, you would see the reason(s) that it had been skipped and reported, and could use that to decide whether to complete the panel or not. Even just telling users that the panel in front of them had previously been skipped and reported could be useful if it's something like cowboy TV that a newbie would definitely not realize is a troll.

On the phrase: "but maybe it could be done after something is skipped and reported once, and done voluntarily."

• If a review task is only generated after a 'skip and report', then the cowboy-hatted TV's (*) are going to get through. Because they look legitimate in isolation, they are unlikely to be reported even once.

• If it's voluntary then the review tasks might pile up, depending upon community behavior (which is hard to predict in advance). It might seem like a chore, but only a five-second chore between each 10-minute drawing.

  • (By 'Cowboy hatted TVs' I mean 'whatever sneaks in next')

I'd prefer it if spot moderation was randomized as a part of game play. Otherwise you might get users who will tend to spend large amounts of time on moderation... it could be abused in the wrong hands.

Doling out the moderation randomly ensures that everyone gets equal opportunity to moderate and no certain sets of users dominate the task.

Or you get a problem in that the majority of the users dont feel like moderating, making the review jobs pile up, and games not finish.

I like the idea, I personally love this site and hate seeing things get derailed. I'm one of those people that will see a drawing that seems off in a panel, and then go to someone's profile and see if they just misinterpreted or were trolling. I would love to help screen things before they ruin a sequence.

I'm all for it. In response to the last few thoughts, I'd say you can opt out of having mod-abilities, even if your "trustworthiness" score would give them too you.

I love this idea.

I'm all for randomizing it, like @Stephra also said.

Giving players a chance to opt out like @Alabit said is also a good idea.

I was just coming to the forums to suggest that new players have to go through a phase of having their submissions approved before being allowed to play as much as they want.

"but I don't want to moderate games"

People would voluntarily moderate badly to lower their trust score so they can play instead of working

"People would voluntarily moderate badly to lower their trust score so they can play instead of working"

Which would of course be highly detrimental to this game. if anything, moderating jobs should on some level be optional.

I don't think it would be a huge burden to players for it to be randomized. I mean, it would take all of about two seconds to look at a two panels and click "TROLL" or "NOT TROLL".

I have a hard time imagining that anyone would be so put off by two seconds of "work" that they would intentionally throw their game so they don't have to do it anymore. It would literally be faster than captioning a panel.

If a player is SOOO focused on only drawing and captioning that they will sabotage their own score,in order to avoid a two-second task, well, I guess they have that right. It would be pointlessly selfish, though, sort of a "cutting off one's nose to spite his face" thing.

This is a really good, well-thought-out suggestion that addresses troll drawings but not troll descriptions.

@itrals Thanks for commenting. Of "the four things that can happen when you press Play", the fourth item addresses troll descriptions.

I think if you made it opt-in you could still randomized, but it would be optional.

Also never give random people the power to moderate if they don't want it.

Wouldn't it be just another item that you could skip, like everything else? If skip is an option, well there's your opt-out/in right there.

Right, but I think an actual opt-in on the settings would be a much better way to do it. It's more voluntary than forced on people. People don't even use the skip panel properly as it is.

What if a troll gets op and starts flagging everything?

"But trolling the system will take a lot more time and labour. They will actually have to obtain a trustworthiness score, which they can only do by playing the game properly for a while." --> that should probably filter out 90% of the trolls.

@Bloodception:

If somebody passes it through, it gets passed through straight away. If it turns out that it shouldn't have been passed through, it can still be flagged from the game page.

If reviewer flags a newcomer's panel as a troll contribution, it would then be reviewed by at least one other person. (I said "n" people, I'm thinking it should take three).

The chance of it being randomly assigned to three trolls in succession would be astronomically small.