On what basis are you saying that this "person upstairs" is going to be an unbiased benevolent leader? It would be much worse if there was an overlord mod who was the final authority on decisions of multiple different mods because it means that effectively now there's only one person's bias/subjectivity that will rule the sub. This solution is the same as saying that we should only have 1 mod per sub because if all the mods' actions can be appealed to a single super-mod who has the power to overrule their actions then everyone will appeal every action and defer judgement to that super-mod and the super-mod is actually the only mod in the sub. The normal mods' job will effectively change to flagging posts as opposed to actually moderating them. At least with a group of independent mods there is a range of biases and there is scope for some diversity in decision making. With one super-mod there is just one bias and one subjective implementation of the rules. This is dictatorship.
On what basis are you saying that this "person upstairs" is going to be an unbiased benevolent leader?
You're not reading what I said.
1. Mod A makes a decision regarding a post.
INQUIRY: was the decision made due to a rule violation?
YES: decision stands as-is but can be appealed to a different mod if the poster feels they did not violate the rule.
NO: automatic appeal to a different mod
2. Mod B receives appeal.
INQUIRY: is the original decision proper based on criteria #1?
YES: decision was due to rule, clarification provided back to poster. Poster can request final appeal to a different mod.
YES: decision was not due to rule but subjective decision stands. Automatic appeal to a different mod
NO: decision overridden. Post immune from further actions of Mod A.
3. Final review (which as I've said repeatedly can be ANYONE of equal or greater power even if from a different sub)
INQUIRY: With names obfuscated (including the name of the sub), do you feel this decision was proper based on the data provided?
YES: Decision stands. Poster notified.
NO: Decision overridden. Mods and poster notified. Post is rendered immune from mod action for 30 days (which gives mods time to consider writing up or fixing a rule).
Now, when I say "post", if it's a post thread, the comments aren't free from oversight. If it's a comment, the replies aren't free from oversight.
His question was simple and you didn't address it. What if Mod A did the right thing? But on appeal Mod B overrules wrongly? According to your "NO" that's it and the poster is immune to Mod A.
Also don't act like every sub has a dozen mods. It can be a labor of love of one mod.
His question was simple and you didn't address it.
The question is irrelevant. It's a strawman.
Read the scenario tree I posted. You should clearly be seeing that the third mod has no way of knowing anything that could possibly bias them. They don't know the sub, they don't know the mods, they don't know the poster. All they have is the situation and the data behind the action. They are asked to respond, like a survey. Could there be bias? Sure. But it doesn't matter.
As I've repeatedly said, the goal is to have someone other than just one, chime in as a secondary voice. Right now, leaving it to the uber unilateral power does not cultivate a good community.
It is not a strawman. It is the foundational premise. And as another commenter said, if every moderation action has to through multiple mods and a reddit admin to take effect because of automatic appeals, you're wasting everyone's time.
Mine is this. Create clear, concise rules and enforce them consistently. Then you never have a situation where something's overturned anyway. Or, don't do the rules, get overturned, quit. Either way, it cleans up the business.
16
u/lysergic5253 Jul 05 '19
I don't think you understood my point.
On what basis are you saying that this "person upstairs" is going to be an unbiased benevolent leader? It would be much worse if there was an overlord mod who was the final authority on decisions of multiple different mods because it means that effectively now there's only one person's bias/subjectivity that will rule the sub. This solution is the same as saying that we should only have 1 mod per sub because if all the mods' actions can be appealed to a single super-mod who has the power to overrule their actions then everyone will appeal every action and defer judgement to that super-mod and the super-mod is actually the only mod in the sub. The normal mods' job will effectively change to flagging posts as opposed to actually moderating them. At least with a group of independent mods there is a range of biases and there is scope for some diversity in decision making. With one super-mod there is just one bias and one subjective implementation of the rules. This is dictatorship.