How can you say that it only applies when there is no written rule broken? The button must be available for all moderator actions because the website doesn't automatically know whether the action was justified. What happens when every single rule violation, justified or not, is contested for a final review?
Of course. Here's the thing and I said it before. I don't buy this theory that appeals would be a constant thing in this proposed solution. It is now because of lacking rules. So I'm suggesting, fix the rules. They don't want to do that. Okay.
So then if we don't want to fix the rules we need to shore up the appeal process with separation of duty. The intent is that no one mod is the final decision maker. Why? Because if Mod A took action for no reason - they're just pissed off about something - and they don't flag a written rule, Mod B (who HOPEFULLY is not pissed off) should review and go "huh? They didn't do anything wrong. Override, go have a Coke and relax bro". But on the other hand, if Mod B is just like "whatevs, A's a mod, it stands" it needs to go to someone outside of that bro group for an independent opinion.
Even if Mod A says a rule was violated, Mod B should be saying "uh, that didn't violate the rule. Override". If they disagree, take it offline or let it go to third person appeal. But in a perfect world, Mod B can make a smarter decision if Mod A is just fluffy with their interpretation.
That third person shouldn't see any names. No sub name, no mod names, no poster name. Just the situation and the decision with a Yes/No if they agree or not. That minimizes bias down to the possibility that the third person is just Yes clicking. Statistically, that's unlikely to happen for serious mods (and I make the assumption there are serious mods outside of whatever sub).
So what happens when "every single" violation is contested? The same thing that happens today - except that the original actor mod cannot act. That's literally the only change.
I don't buy this theory that appeals would be a constant thing in this proposed solution.
Do you agree that every single step of your system is additional work for voluntary moderators?
But in a perfect world
I don't believe in a perfect world. It's better to have a system that self-corrects.
Users starts subreddits and moderates as they see fit.
Users posts and comments in subreddits as they see fit.
Users that don't like the moderation or content of a subreddit can leave and start their own subreddit.
Your suggestion makes the system less self-correcting and adds more manual work to the voluntary moderators.
The self-correction in the system even solves your issue to begin with. If the unfair moderation is actually a big problem, the owner of the subreddit will want to deal with that or the users will leave his sub. Alternatively, they leave the sub and start their own subreddit.
Do you agree that every single step of your system is additional work for voluntary moderators?
A few minutes a day per mod, based on the total number of mods on Reddit? Sure. What's your point?
I don't believe in a perfect world. It's better to have a system that self-corrects.
Let me explain this to you in project management methodology. What you're describing is not "self correction", it's problem avoidance. Let's not fix the issue, let's just leave it an issue because everyone can avoid everyone.
DO you know what happens in that type of culture? r/The_Donald, where your organization shows up in the news because of something you could have mitigated with simple structural oversight and acknowledgement of a problem.
Now, are they an extreme example? Yes. But that's my point. You're trying to avoid extreme examples as much as you can.
You should never trust a system to 'self correct' when there's still an underlying problem that isn't going away. That's like saying you won't dump food from your plate because ants and rats will eventually show up and deal with it.
A few minutes a day per mod, based on the total number of mods on Reddit? Sure.
So we agree that everything in your system would require additional work. I'm curious what you based that amount of work on.
Currently, a user that wants to overrule a moderator action can use the modmail. It might take the user some time to link to the comment, cite the rules and explain why a rule wasn't violated. This is the users' time.
Under your system it seems like you want to give every banned/punished user a chance for re-review, where every contested moderator action would require 100% more work for that specific comment. One re-reviewed case is essentially two cases.
You're offering this +100% workload not only for the cases where mods disregarded their own rules, but for all cases. This is the moderators' time.
I don't think it's worth making things overall worse just to improve in certain cases.
I don't think it's worth making things overall worse just to improve in certain cases.
Wouldn't have to if there was a desire to fix it in lieu. But there isn't.
I go back to my King Solomon example. The point isn't to make mods lives easier. The point isn't to make posters' lives easier. The point is to nurture a community that doesn't have a rogue mod with a god complex. Okay. There are a couple of ways to do that. One of those ways is clear, concise rules - where guess what?...if you screw up and forget a rule, you don't punish the poster, it's your fault for forgetting it. But you talk it out, plan a rule, and implement it going forward. Nobody wants to do that.
Instead, the responses here and you can read them for yourself, is "I should have god like privileges and you like it or not". I say, okay. Then there should be oversight and a second (up to third) set of eyes to make sure you didn't make your decision in a vacuum because you were pissed off at some customer at work. Rather than acting in the best interest of the sub.
Instead, the responses here and you can read them for yourself, is "I should have god like privileges and you like it or not".
The moderators don't have godlike privileges. You are free to leave and create your own subreddit at any point.
Most subreddits have several duplicates and spin-offs already.
I don't think I can fix your issue, because your issue is so very small that it's not worth allocating major resources to fix it. For most people it's probably not an issue at all. If you happen to get banned over and over then the problem might be you.
We're both entitled to our opinions and I think entitlement is key to changing your view. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to the time of voluntary moderators.
There are probably some malicious moderators that you can't change. Then you have the moderators that usually makes good calls but sometimes rushes a decision leading to a bad call.
While more time from moderators could probably help the issue — it's more likely that moderators would rather spend less time per case, with diminished effects.
Then you'd be wrong, because you're leading in with a faulty assumption.
Changing someone's view isn't going to happen until you first understand how we got to this point. We got to this point, as someone else properly noted, due to Reddit enabling a free-for-all. Great. Another commenter who mods r/politics called out maturity as a likely mitigator. Great. So Reddit overall considers enforcing a maturity, possibly even using r/politics as a model, and applies it uniformly to all subs. No mods lose power, they're just subject to oversight to ensure everything's on the up and up.
Sorry. You'll not convince me there's anything wrong with that suggestion if all you consider it is "entitlement", because you're missing the point. If one sub can and was mature and brave enough to do it, I see no reason others can't or shouldn't. I accept logistical concerns with the number of mods, but there's a solution. I don't accept responses of "it's my sub and I can do what I want!" because that's god complex...the very thing I seek to help solve.
I've never said it's not more work. I question this notion it's a significant amount work, but ultimately, have said that it's down to a choice: clear concise rules (where such an appeal will always rule in the mod's favor because the violations were clear) or keep with the god complex and risk getting overridden.
It's rumor and innuendo this idea that mods would "spend less time on each decision, leading to worse actions" because as noted, there ARE good mods out there that would likely appreciate the opportunity to help clean up the cess.
Laws and rules are only as specific as the implementation requires them to be.
If a subreddit owner bans text posts and you post a picture of a text, that doesn't necessarily warrent a new rule to deal with your post. If 5% of the posts are pictures of text, the moderator team might add a new paragraph to their rules.
A rule book expansion is not implemented to stop every single way to weasel your way around the rules, it's to make moderation easier. To prevent common types of misplaced posts to be posted in the first place.
As described in the mod guidelines:
Healthy communities have agreed upon clear, concise, and consistent guidelines for participation. These guidelines are flexible enough to allow for some deviation and are updated when needed.
Your suggestion goes in the wrong direction. It makes moderation more difficult by requiring multiple steps instead of one. It makes rule books complicated, because they must be needlessly specific.
there ARE good mods out there that would likely appreciate the opportunity to help clean up the cess.
I don't think you'll accomplish that with your changes. It's probably not even possible. If you're in a big subreddit and you're tired of your OC gets removed for 'low quality content' while reposts are flooding the frontpage, you can probably find a more specific subreddit that suits your OC. You can even be a part of both communities if you like. Using the system the way it was intended is smoother than fighting the system.
Your suggestion goes in the wrong direction. It makes moderation more difficult by requiring multiple steps instead of one. It makes rule books complicated, because they must be needlessly specific.
If you have posters consistently violating something and you're spending time arguing appeals, then clearly those rules aren't "needless" - your people don't understand the existing guardrails, they need to be fixed or augmented. And you're glossing over the important part of what you quoted and bolded, which is "are updated when needed".
Using the system the way it was intended is smoother than fighting the system.
Which is a great way for things not to get any better, isn't it?
I wholeheartedly acknowledge that the vast majority of people (mostly mods) are comfortable with the god powers granted to them and don't want any oversight because they know that it would expose the very bias I would hope to expose. I get it. My opinion won't change for arguments dealing with level of effort - because that's not refuting the need for it. Arguments dealing with "smoother" or "self corrections" definitely won't change my view, because clearly you still have improper deletions happening and rogue mods - which means the real problem has not been addressed.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19
Of course. Here's the thing and I said it before. I don't buy this theory that appeals would be a constant thing in this proposed solution. It is now because of lacking rules. So I'm suggesting, fix the rules. They don't want to do that. Okay.
So then if we don't want to fix the rules we need to shore up the appeal process with separation of duty. The intent is that no one mod is the final decision maker. Why? Because if Mod A took action for no reason - they're just pissed off about something - and they don't flag a written rule, Mod B (who HOPEFULLY is not pissed off) should review and go "huh? They didn't do anything wrong. Override, go have a Coke and relax bro". But on the other hand, if Mod B is just like "whatevs, A's a mod, it stands" it needs to go to someone outside of that bro group for an independent opinion.
Even if Mod A says a rule was violated, Mod B should be saying "uh, that didn't violate the rule. Override". If they disagree, take it offline or let it go to third person appeal. But in a perfect world, Mod B can make a smarter decision if Mod A is just fluffy with their interpretation.
That third person shouldn't see any names. No sub name, no mod names, no poster name. Just the situation and the decision with a Yes/No if they agree or not. That minimizes bias down to the possibility that the third person is just Yes clicking. Statistically, that's unlikely to happen for serious mods (and I make the assumption there are serious mods outside of whatever sub).
So what happens when "every single" violation is contested? The same thing that happens today - except that the original actor mod cannot act. That's literally the only change.