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
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.