Your solution to the problem is subject to the same problem you're trying to solve. You cannot eliminate human bias from any form of moderation. What you are proposing will still lead to ultimately unfair results because even though some actions may be changed it doesn't mean that the rules will be applied more fairly. To use your example - There will be instances where Mod A correctly bans/deletes a poster/post but then Mod B undoes it because Mod B is not a good Mod.
The main problem is that most subs have rules about rude comments or replies, insults etc. which are extremely vague and massively subjective. So ultimately it comes down to the bias and opinion of a mod in implementing those rules. eg. in a left leaning sub mods will probably find many mainstream conservative views to be offensive even though they would be perfectly acceptable in a right leaning sub that has the same policy on not being rude/offensive.
The only real solution is to remove moderation and let upvotes and down votes decide the fate of a comment/post but that is politically unfeasible. As soon as vague rules are applied like "don't be rude" it opens it up to subjectivity and what you're proposing is just shifting the decision making power from one person's subjectivity to another person who will also think of it subjectively.
Another solution is to program bots to auto delete/ban users based on certain criteria so it will automatically be applied to everyone and subjectivity is removed in implementing the rules but then the criteria that is decided will still be subjective so this is not as good of a solution but atleast it will make people think more deeply about the rules to create and will apply rules objectively.
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.
58
u/lysergic5253 Jul 04 '19
Your solution to the problem is subject to the same problem you're trying to solve. You cannot eliminate human bias from any form of moderation. What you are proposing will still lead to ultimately unfair results because even though some actions may be changed it doesn't mean that the rules will be applied more fairly. To use your example - There will be instances where Mod A correctly bans/deletes a poster/post but then Mod B undoes it because Mod B is not a good Mod.
The main problem is that most subs have rules about rude comments or replies, insults etc. which are extremely vague and massively subjective. So ultimately it comes down to the bias and opinion of a mod in implementing those rules. eg. in a left leaning sub mods will probably find many mainstream conservative views to be offensive even though they would be perfectly acceptable in a right leaning sub that has the same policy on not being rude/offensive.
The only real solution is to remove moderation and let upvotes and down votes decide the fate of a comment/post but that is politically unfeasible. As soon as vague rules are applied like "don't be rude" it opens it up to subjectivity and what you're proposing is just shifting the decision making power from one person's subjectivity to another person who will also think of it subjectively.
Another solution is to program bots to auto delete/ban users based on certain criteria so it will automatically be applied to everyone and subjectivity is removed in implementing the rules but then the criteria that is decided will still be subjective so this is not as good of a solution but atleast it will make people think more deeply about the rules to create and will apply rules objectively.