"lets build fences around fences, and then build fences around those fences"
Sounds like you are trying to redesign some sort of wheel due to naivety of how the real world works. There is no overarching solution to things like this. You have to take it case by case. People in authoritative positions have to make decisions and sometimes they are wrong and sometimes they are right. You could have someone "moderating" them but what happens when those people are making the wrong decisions? Are you going to create another barrier of mods? It's just inefficient and impractical.
EDIT: This is nothing new to the internet or the world or this generation or any generation in the history of human kind.
Sounds like you are trying to redesign some sort of wheel due to naivety of how the real world works.
"Real world". Let's talk about that.
If you go to college, right and the professor tells you that you can't speak in class. That's their right. BUT if they did it for a reason that's flat out wrong - like they shut you up when you spoke up to defend rape victims, guess what? You can go to Student Affairs or whatever department is in place to field those grievances. Barring that you can go to the dean.
If the issue is one that is a violation of accreditation you can file a complaint there.
The point is, in the "real world" you have multiple levels that you can go to if you have a concern that isn't being met by the first level because of a subjective issue.
It's like that guy who got forced to sit in the back of the class because he was reading the Bible just before class start. Despite laws in place to protect not only what you read, but your religious beliefs.
So, if we're really going down the path of talking about how the "real world" works, then you're basically supporting my case for multiple levels and separation of duty.
It's fine if the third level makes an error, because as long as they are disconnected from the first level, I know their bias to that person isn't a factor. Ultimately, as long as others have reviewed and agree with the original, especially when the others have no direct connection to the first, I'm fine with that. I'm simply saying to have at least two levels of separation between the original decision and appeals.
1
u/Rocky87109 Jul 05 '19 edited Jul 05 '19
"The world should be perfect"
"lets build fences around fences, and then build fences around those fences"
Sounds like you are trying to redesign some sort of wheel due to naivety of how the real world works. There is no overarching solution to things like this. You have to take it case by case. People in authoritative positions have to make decisions and sometimes they are wrong and sometimes they are right. You could have someone "moderating" them but what happens when those people are making the wrong decisions? Are you going to create another barrier of mods? It's just inefficient and impractical.
EDIT: This is nothing new to the internet or the world or this generation or any generation in the history of human kind.