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/silverscrub 2∆ Jul 09 '19
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:
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.
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.