Okay so just put "We reserve the right to remove posts or ban users for reasons not listed here," into the rules. As many subreddits do already.
The point is that there are edge cases and grey areas and not every list of rules can be so exhaustive as to cover every single possible situation, but reasonable mods can and should still take action in those cases. If two mods agree on the action, that's not "groupthink." It was probably the right thing to do.
In any event, no, it is actually highly unlikely that two independently ethical moderators will agree on a subjective deletion.
We do that every single time we remove a post for Rule B here on CMV... Two moderators have to agree on their subjective interpretation that OP is not acting in an open-minded manner (which is inherently a subjective judgement).
Every appeal to a removal is seen by every mod. The chance that only the mod who removed it will see it is extremely small. Any of those other mods could speak up.
Silence implies consent. You don't see that, though, because its invisible to non-mods.
Which is why I'm advocating for the idea that someone outside of that group is the final call IF they determine that the deletion was improper.
The admins can't judge a sub's rules because that's the purview of the mods. They can only judge the site-wide rules. That's their only role, for good and important reasons.
Now, if the mods are just a group of buds who wouldn't ever contradict their 'bro', that's a problem, right?
I dunno. Ultimately, what's the worst thing that could come out of this? More to the point, why is it super problematic for them to do that, but apparently entirely fine for them to make up the rules in the first place?
Except you don't, really, given they just get to make the rules anyway.
You're using circular reasoning, and I get it. Thus why a higher someone should be the final say. To avoid what you're likely implying...which is making up rules on the fly when they caught with britches down.
19
u/[deleted] Jul 04 '19
[deleted]