Voting on moderator's actions

O'Morris

I have a suggestion for an improvement to this site and I would be interested to get people's feedback.

I recently had a bad experience on the European Union section of the politics forum when a thread I had started was closed unexpectedly for "going round in circles". I thought the closure was completely unjustified and tried to find some way to appeal the decision. I got no reply when I sent a PM to the moderator who closed the thread and so I decided to start what I thought was a serious thread on this feedback forum. Instead of it being taken seriously the thread was instantly flooded with large photo-shopped images of animals, the aim being to take up space on the thread and thereby prevent any serious discussion. I've since learned that the moderators of this forum actually endorse this kind of behaviour when the person who starts the thread is not liked by the other moderators.

This led me to the view that the current feedback and appeals process on this site is totally inadequate and in need of improvement. So this is what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions. Every action taken by a moderator (a banning, thread closure or warning) must appear in a different format and colour to the normal posts, one that makes it stick out from the others. Other posters won't be able to comment on the action taken but they will be given the option to vote on whether they approve or disaprove of the action. The voting will be anonymous but every poster must be logged in to vote and neither the moderator nor the victim of the moderator's action will be able to vote. The result of people's voting will appear either as a percentage or possibly as a small horizontal bar chart under the post with a running total updated each time someone votes, the same way the results of a poll would appear.

The list of actions taken by the moderator will appear in a separate section of that moderator's profile page and people can then see a history of that moderator's actions with a running average of the votes cast in all of the moderation posts. If the moderator's average scoring is low and if there is a long string of unpopular actions being taken by him or her then the administrators would be obligated to have a word with that moderator to see if there's a reason why he or she is acting in ways that so many people find objectionable.

Some of the benefits that I can see to this type of system

1. Posters will not feel as ignored or as powerless when the they are the victim of an unfair or biased action by a moderator.
2. Threads will be less likely to go off-topic because posters will be less likely to spend time arguing with the moderators.
3. Moderators will be less likely to behave capriciously. Ar an lamh eile, moderators who behave responsibly will be rewarded and encouraged through the support they receive from other posters.
4. This feedback forum will not be flooded with threads from people whinging about their treatment at the hands of moderators
5. boards.ie will begin to shake off it's bad reputation as a place with a repressive moderation system.

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in this type of system but I think it would definitely be worth exploring whether there are methods of holding the moderators to account and preventing them from behaving so arrogantly. A lot of people on this site think the moderators have far too much power and that they abuse that power. There's one moderator on the politics forum for example who attracts a lot of attention for what some people see as his abrasive and heavy-handed moderation style. If there was a method for posters to quickly register their disapproval of his actions he might then be inclined to moderate his own behaviour. Alternatively, if people support his actions then it would strenghten his position and it would alienate those people who don't like the way he behaves.

I don't know how difficult this would be to implement on the site but I can't see it being any more difficult than the thanking system that was introduced not that long ago. Maybe the administrators of the site might consider trying it for a trial period on just one or two forums and give the moderators the option to opt in or out. Then if it's a success after a week or two you could roll it out to the rest of the site.

Cuddlesworth

You missed a inherent flaw in your plan. People.

For every 10 people who give a bad mark there will only be 1 that will give a good one. And certain forums will always remain unpopular as they are forced to go at it with a heavy hand.

Mr Magnolia

tl;dr.

Wouldn't you be better off waiting and finding out how boards works. You've only been a member for a month you couldn't really have it all sussed already could you?

Beruthiel

tl;dr

But no way in hell would I agree to a poll on a moderator decision.

KnifeWRENCH

You want people to vote on EVERY Mod decision on EVERY thread in EVERY forum? That's just not feasible tbh.

Karl Hungus

O'Morris wrote: »

The list of actions taken by the moderator will appear in a separate section of that moderator's profile page and people can then see a history of that moderator's actions with a running average of the votes cast in all of the moderation posts. If the moderator's average scoring is low and if there is a long string of unpopular actions being taken by him or her then the administrators would be obligated to have a word with that moderator to see if there's a reason why he or she is acting in ways that so many people find objectionable.

The problem with that is that it would be abused from the get-go. There's people who seem to absolutely joy themselves by throwing a spanner in the works at every opportunity, and make modding an increasingly irritating task.

Not saying that a lot of users can't feel shortchanged by their experiences on boards, it's fairly evident they do, but the course of action should be to post a rational thread appealing the decision here or in the Helpdesk, after you've exhausted dialogue with the moderator over PM. Yes, it's not as quick and easy as rating the moderation, but it's not something that's open to the kind of abuse that boards is regularly subjected to.

Calina

I realise that as I am a moderator you will possibly not want to take my opinion into account.

I am against this. Feedback works in general for unfair issues and bans. If it doesn't work for you then perhaps it might be worth considering that you were, in fact, in the wrong. I realise that this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is worth considering.

This site works because it has a framework and a limited amount of anarchy. What you are proposing would lead to chaos and anarchy and what makes this place a well run community of communities would disappear. I think it would destroy many positive features of the site and frankly no one would want to moderate. This is a bad thing.

Boards may well have a reputation for some fairly hefty moderation - I moderate a couple of other boards where the key difference is we don't need the same level of moderation because we don't get the same level of muppetry - yes, part of that is down to posting population size. However.

Moderation is a function of muppetry in other words. More muppetry, more irritated mods handing out bans and infractions. I like to stamp muppetry out as fast as possible on the forums I moderate so that the vast majority of non-muppeting posters don't have their enjoyment ruined and threads don't get derailed.

I don't particularly like the lolcats but I see them as a canary in the mine signal; when they get pulled out, there's a fair chance that there is some muppetry afoot in the feedback thread.

Marcus.Aurelius

as an admin on another site with vbulletin, i wouldn't even think of using this idea, too much effort and giving the really bad posters too much power. Boards is even busier

Overheal

O'Morris wrote: »

what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions.

You're looking at it: welcome to feedback.

I stopped reading at said line in your post - frankly it was long winded, cant we get our point across without resorting to shakespearean?

problems with a proper polling option include but are not limited to the time and energy required for a moderators actions to be questioned at each and every turn. Hundreds of moderator actions occur on a per daily basis: do we need a thread for them all? profile entries of that nature arent supported by vbulletin.

second this is a privately owned website, not a free democracy. the owners hir the admins elect the mods who get to do what they want how they want. While they listen to our feedback as we traffic the site and keep it vibrant and alive, they are not obliged to. If they wanted they could strip the site and turn it into http://thebestpageintheuniverse.com

Politics is probably the most volatile forum on the whole site: keep that in mind when you post in there.

faceman

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

tl;dr.

Wouldn't you be better off waiting and finding out how boards works. You've only been a member for a month you couldn't really have it all sussed already could you?

How do you know he hasnt been reading threads without registering prior to that?

You should at least have read his post before making that remark.

OP, i understand where you are coming from, however some forums are moderated more heavily than otherrs due to past issues which have possibly spoilt the forum. (e.g. soccer) I dont agree with rating of moderator decisions though. it makes the assumption that each user who rates will make an unbiased fair educated decision.

If there is an issue with a mod it can be raised with an S-Mod or higher. While the majority of threads in feedback get nowhere, posters with geniune gripes who raise it in a civil way do get listened too.

Dinter

It seems like a nice idea but in reality it'll work out exactly as real politics does.

People will vote for their cliques or their friends or not to upset the mods or whatever facile reason they think of.

Also to a certain extent mods represent the users. Although I've seen what I'd consider heavy handed moderation from some of them when the inevitable feedback thread is started it turns out that the majority of people agree with the moderators.

The person whose post has been edited, changed, reprimanded etc is obviously too close to the situation to see that sometimes moderation is just that.

The moderate line that their opinion renders them unaware of as they thread too deeply either side.

Mr Magnolia

faceman, I'll read it all as soon as the OP answers my question.

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

Dinter

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

faceman, I'll read it all as soon as the OP answers my question.

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

Ah in all fairness the op had obviously put a lot of thought into it.

Even if he doesn't know everything he was posing a question for general feedback on his idea not a brush off.

faceman

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

Just send them to the usual email address

Mr Magnolia

Dinter wrote: »

Ah in all fairness the op had obviously put a lot of thought into it.

Even if he doesn't know everything he was posing a question for general feedback on his idea not a brush off.

He certainly doesn't need to know everything. He does need to know how boards runs generally, that's all I was trying to ascertain. This is dragging the thread off-topic.

watna

I can see where you're coming from but most of my mod actions involved deleting spam or really stupid posts. Once I delete them only mods can see them. I don't think it's necessary for everyone of those deleted posts to be visible and for mods to be judged on gettig rid of them.

Of all the mod actions that take place on a daily basis, a handful of them will be bannings. Therefore a system like the one you want put in place would be a bit of a waste of time. I think the feedback system, although it is a bit flawed is the best way to go about things for the moment.

togster

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

In future I'll send all my replies through you for approval prior to posting .0>

I vote...NO

Faceman keepin it real.

OP bad idea. Very bad

Dinter

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

He certainly doesn't need to know everything. He does need to know how boards runs generally, that's all I was trying to ascertain. This is dragging the thread off-topic.

No he doesn't really.

Even if he didn't know Boards is ran as a private enterprise that's controlled by yadda, yadda, yadda, it was still a legitimate query.

That's how the flaws that he mentions in his post he expects to get will be pointed out.

I think it's an idea that would contribute little to boards while undermining mods when their decisions should only ever be received with sighs of wearisome consent by the thralls they control.

Steve

Boards is not a democracy, never has been, never will be.

The current formula has made it the most popular site in the country so why change it.

Rest assured, if the owners of the site don't like the moderation / moderator then if gets changed pretty quickly.

Why fix something that's not broke? (thats what politicians are for).

Karl Hungus

SteveC wrote: »

Boards is not a democracy, never has been, never will be.

The current formula has made it the most popular site in the country so why change it.

Rest assured, if the owners of the site don't like the moderation / moderator then if gets changed pretty quickly.

Why fix something that's not broke? (thats what politicians are for).

In that case, why bother to make any improvements at all?

Honestly, I think the Feedback forum could do with an overhaul, it can be daunting and open to trolling. We can always make things run better, more efficient, more user friendly, just because it isn't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Dragan

You had a problem and posted it to feedback. It was dealt with in feedback and some pretty learned people came along and agreed with the closure.

Now you want to change the system because you feel it is wrong.

The only reason you feel this is because it didn't function in a way that suited you.

Anything else i forgot?

Dinter

Dragan wrote: »

You had a problem and posted it to feedback. It was dealt with in feedback and some pretty learned people came along and agreed with the closure.

Now you want to change the system because you feel it is wrong.

The only reason you feel this is because it didn't function in a way that suited you.

Why not ignore the poster and just deal with his post?

Otherwise this will just be a repeat of his earlier thread.

Toto Wolfcastle

Dragan wrote: »

You had a problem and posted it to feedback. It was dealt with in feedback and some pretty learned people came along and agreed with the closure.

Now you want to change the system because you feel it is wrong.

The only reason you feel this is because it didn't function in a way that suited you.

Anything else i forgot?

Forgot to mention that if someone want a lolcat free appeal then there's always the helpdesk.

Steve

Karl Hungus wrote: »

In that case, why bother to make any improvements at all?

I'm all for improvemments, The OP however is asking for a major overhaul of moderating policy.

If the users were allowed to judge moderating decisions on a per post basis then the mod becomes little more than a user who gets extra attention and gains a dislike for the guy who always votes against him.

I would agree on one suggested improvement made by the OP. Moderating decisions / orders should be highlighted in some way so there is no confusion about what is going on - especially when the mod is actively commenting in the same thread. This seems to catch new users a lot and only results in useless cat ridden 'why was I banned' threads in feedback.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, I think the Feedback forum could do with an overhaul, it can be daunting and open to trolling. We can always make things run better, more efficient, more user friendly, just because it isn't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I think feedback works pretty well, again it's not a democracy. Despite what everyone thinks, the admins do take on board what is said and this can be verified by looking at any of DeVores (serious) posts here.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

I have a suggestion for an improvement to this site and I would be interested to get people's feedback.

Well as long as you are able to take the feedback if it doesn't agree with your ideas?

I recently had a bad experience on the European Union section of the politics forum when a thread I had started was closed unexpectedly for "going round in circles". I thought the closure was completely unjustified and tried to find some way to appeal the decision. I got no reply when I sent a PM to the moderator who closed the thread and so I decided to start what I thought was a serious thread on this feedback forum. Instead of it being taken seriously the thread was instantly flooded with large photo-shopped images of animals, the aim being to take up space on the thread and thereby prevent any serious discussion. I've since learned that the moderators of this forum actually endorse this kind of behaviour when the person who starts the thread is not liked by the other moderators.

Normally if a feedback thread shows up dodgy decisions by mods there are plenty of users both mods and not who will post serious questions about it as well. From your description your issue was not one of these and you are now throwing the "toys out of the pram" because you didn't get your way.

If you want an smod or admin to address a serious issue you normally post in the Helpdesk forum where only you and the smods and admins can discuss the issue.

This led me to the view that the current feedback and appeals process on this site is totally inadequate and in need of improvement. So this is what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions. Every action taken by a moderator (a banning, thread closure or warning) must appear in a different format and colour to the normal posts, one that makes it stick out from the others. Other posters won't be able to comment on the action taken but they will be given the option to vote on whether they approve or disaprove of the action. The voting will be anonymous but every poster must be logged in to vote and neither the moderator nor the victim of the moderator's action will be able to vote. The result of people's voting will appear either as a percentage or possibly as a small horizontal bar chart under the post with a running total updated each time someone votes, the same way the results of a poll would appear.

The list of actions taken by the moderator will appear in a separate section of that moderator's profile page and people can then see a history of that moderator's actions with a running average of the votes cast in all of the moderation posts. If the moderator's average scoring is low and if there is a long string of unpopular actions being taken by him or her then the administrators would be obligated to have a word with that moderator to see if there's a reason why he or she is acting in ways that so many people find objectionable.

You obviously have never been involved in modding a high volume site, this is unworkable. The admins on this site do take an active interest in who mods where and what actions they take. They have taken decisive action against mods who have "gone off the the rails" in the past and they will in the future as well.

The problem for you is DeVore publically thanked the mods on the EU Forum for their hard work and excellent modding so it looks like he disagrees with you as well.

Some of the benefits that I can see to this type of system

Posters will not feel as ignored or as powerless when the they are the victim of an unfair or biased action by a moderator.

Biased in your opinion. If there was obvious bias the feedback thread would have highlighted that given the wide variety of personalities that post here. You also have the Helpdesk to address the smods and admins of the site directly.

[*] Threads will be less likely to go off-topic because posters will be less likely to spend time arguing with the moderators.

Read the forum charter on most forums arguing with a mod in a thread is forbidden anyway so taking threads off topic is not an issue.

[*] Moderators will be less likely to behave capriciously. Ar an lamh eile, moderators who behave responsibly will be rewarded and encouraged through the support they receive from other posters.

Moderators on the whole don't behave capriciously, in your case they didn't accept your argument.

[*] This feedback forum will not be flooded with threads from people whinging about their treatment at the hands of moderators

Given the userbase, the number of posts and the size of boards this forum is not flooded.

[*] boards.ie will begin to shake off it's bad reputation as a place with a repressive moderation system.
[/LIST]

TBH the only people who say this are the ones who cannot post within the rules. There is a good reason why boards is as popular as it is. The proactive moderation. Rubbish is removed, threads that turn into roundabout arguments are closed. Idiots who cannot post within the rules or use the site to spam or shill their wares are banned.

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in this type of system but I think it would definitely be worth exploring whether there are methods of holding the moderators to account and preventing them from behaving so arrogantly. A lot of people on this site think the moderators have far too much power and that they abuse that power. There's one moderator on the politics forum for example who attracts a lot of attention for what some people see as his abrasive and heavy-handed moderation style. If there was a method for posters to quickly register their disapproval of his actions he might then be inclined to moderate his own behaviour. Alternatively, if people support his actions then it would strenghten his position and it would alienate those people who don't like the way he behaves.

Extreme flaws, the additional coding would be a start. I would prefer the admins spend time on performance enhancement than this wild goose chase. The moderators on this forum only have the power that the admins give them and that can be taken away. The moderators are not gods but more like janitors cleaning up the rubbish thats dumped in the various forums they are charged with keeping up and running. As an ex-Politics mod and Cmod of Society I really don't envy the mods there it is one of the toughest forums to moderate.

I don't know how difficult this would be to implement on the site but I can't see it being any more difficult than the thanking system that was introduced not that long ago. Maybe the administrators of the site might consider trying it for a trial period on just one or two forums and give the moderators the option to opt in or out. Then if it's a success after a week or two you could roll it out to the rest of the site.

As stated it is not a standard feature of the system and would have to be custom coded something that is not going to happen imho.

Dragan

Dinter wrote: »

Why not ignore the poster and just deal with his post?

Otherwise this will just be a repeat of his earlier thread.

I am dealing with his post, the main root of the reason he posted it in fact. I honestly feel the OP has no interest in improving boards and is simply suggesting a ridiculous solution to what he see's as being a problem.

Could feedback do with being more serious? Yes.

Is a measure like the one proposed going to help? No. With ever infraction, deletion, thread locking of slap on the wrist you have at least one person who is going to be annoyed over it. Given them an easy means to facelessly attack a Mod is not going to help anything imo.

Dades

O'Morris wrote: »

So this is what I propose - an option for people to vote on moderation decisions.

Sweet Jebus we saw what happened with Lisbon when we allow the public to vote!

kaimera

The fora I mod I run as a democracy in the sense posters decide how they want it run and it runs like that with very little input from me.

Least I try too.

It's all about discussion and debate with yer posters imo

pirelli

It is a good idea, There is one problem.

One important function of a moderator by definition is to monitor flame ups and cool things down. This cannot be decided by a vote their and then.

In a flame when people are arguing and a warning is given then everyone is going to dissapprove there and then. If the moderator just warns one person then the opposing side will all agree with the mod. It will be down to who agrees with who on in the present discussion.

The voting there and then will only reflect who is hot and bothered with whom ever about what ever the discussion is about.

At the end of the day when impartial and therefore more reasonable people log in the thread will have moved on and the oppourtunity to vote wont appeal to them as it will involve trying to decipher the situation, and while a few will it wont give an accurate reflection due to the initial votes which are biased or have nothing to do with moderating and more to do with getting their way.

You can't allow voting indefinetly, so it will close soon after otherwise, user who hate mods will just vote against them.

Dinter

If anyone would like to see what happens when a mod pays attention to the democratic vote check out the Pighead thread in feedback and the whole poll debacle.

Dragan

Dinter wrote: »

If anyone would like to see what happens when a mod pays attention to the democratic vote check out the Pighead thread in feedback and the whole poll debacle.

Moot point, Trout has already confirmed that neither poll led to an action and that he closed one as he felt it was in poor taste.

jhegarty

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

tl;dr.

Wouldn't you be better off waiting and finding out how boards works. You've only been a member for a month you couldn't really have it all sussed already could you?

Long "thoughtful" post for such a new member... anyone else smell a re-reg ?

Dinter

blah

O'Morris

Old Mac is sure able to get the vote out.

I'm not surprised that most of the replies have come from moderators, I was expecting that. They will be the people who will be impacted by this and so it's understandable that they don't like the idea.

It would take far too long to reply to each individual post so I'm just going to address two of the the main points that have been made so far.

Firstly, I think some people misunderstood what I was proposing. What I'm proposing is a simple means for people to register their approval of disapproval of a moderator's action. That's all! No automatic reversal of a decision once the no votes reach 50%+, no automatically generated emails to the administrators asking that moderators be kicked out, no free-ipods for the moderators with the highest average ratings, just a simple yes or no option at the bottom of every moderator post so that people can quickly and anonymously indicate whether they agree with the action that has been taken. I can't see this as being technically very difficult to implement. I've no experience with PHP but I don't think it's all that much of a challenge. This site already supports polling so wouldn't it be possible to use similar functionality for this voting system? Someone asked as well if everyone would have to vote on every action taken by a moderator on every forum - absolutely not. The system would be completely optional, people would have the option to vote if they want to.

Secondly, on the point about the system being abused, that's very possible and that's why I think this should be introduced on a trial basis to see how it will work in practice. It might turn out that disgruntled posters will vote more often than the others in an attempt to punish those moderators that they don't like. It's possible the opposite will also happen and people will vote for moderators that they do like. I think on balance though people will probably vote sensibly. I've a feeling that the system will probably be abused at the start but eventually people will get tired of it once the novelty wears off. It's the same with everything on the site, there are many things that can be abused but people just couldn't be bothered. Why should be any different with this? There's a minority who will always cause trouble but I think that minority will be too small to really skew the results of a vote.

And the scope that this system will present for abuse will be very limited. What can people do other than vote on way or another. They won't be able to leave abusive comments or post large images of dogs so it's not as if this is going to require any moderation. I don't think moderators are that sensitive that they would be worried about an unpopular response to one of their actions.

O'Morris

jhegarty wrote: »

anyone else smell a re-reg ?

What's a re-reg?

Jack Sheehan

No.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

Old Mac is sure able to get the vote out.

A bit cryptic this one eh?

I'm not surprised that most of the replies have come from moderators, I was expecting that. They will be the people who will be impacted by this and so it's understandable that they don't like the idea.

Well the biggest point that you have missed is moderators are users on the site and outside their forums they are ORDINARY users of the site.

It would take far too long to reply to each individual post so I'm just going to address two of the the main points that have been made so far.

Basically you are too lazy to respond to the input people have put in and have selectively responded.

Here is my selected response. This is never going to happen. Stop wasting valuable 0's and 1's.

If you want feedback from a wide variety of users here is the place to post it, (warning it may include cats). If you just want a response from the admins and smods with no cats then post in the Helpdesk forum.

This is the system and on the whole it works well.

O'Morris

gandalf wrote:

bit cryptic this one eh?

No idea what you mean by that.

gandalf wrote:

Basically you are too lazy to respond to the input people have put in and have selectively responded.

Considering that the thread is just a few hours old and it has already taken up three pages in replies I think you can understand why I might not want to spend time replying to each individual post.

I've read all the comments and I appreciate the feedback that people have provided. Most of the comments however revolve around two main issues - a misunderstanding of what it is I'm proposing and concernes that the system might be abused. I've attempted to address those concerns above.

gandalf wrote:

If you want feedback from a wide variety of users here is the place to post it

That's what I thought. That's why I posted it here.

gandalf wrote:

This is the system and on the whole it works well.

A bit like the EU? No need of reform?

leninbenjamin

as a non moderator I wholeheartedly disapprove of this proposal.

O'Morris take some more time to look at how boards works, as it will become clear as to why this not at all viable.

Maximilian

O'Morris wrote: »

Old Mac is sure able to get the vote out.

gandalf wrote: »

A bit cryptic this one eh?

Lovely ol' fellow - only knew three vowels and used to own a small agricultural holding once. Wasn't too successful though, had just the three animals as I recall. Noisy ****ers they were too.

Sparks

And what happens when people vote to do something that gets boards.ie sued? Is everyone who voted legally liable, or just those who voted to do the thing and not those who voted against?

O'Morris

leninbenjamin wrote:

O'Morris take some more time to look at how boards works, as it will become clear as to why this not at all viable.

Do you mean it's not viable technically or not viable because of the risk of it being abused? I can't see either of them being a problem.

The system would require no moderation, in many cases the result will be in the moderator's favour and it would be introduced on a trial basis so it can be easily scrapped if any problems are identified. Would it not make an interesting experiment to give it a shot and see what happens?

Sparks wrote:

And what happens when people vote to do something that gets boards.ie sued? Is everyone who voted legally liable, or just those who voted to do the thing and not those who voted against?

How exactly could a moderator's actions result in boards.ie getting sued? Has it ever happened before?

Sparks

O'Morris wrote: »

How exactly could a moderator's actions result in boards.ie getting sued?

You're in the second most litigious country in the world and boards.ie is technically a publisher. You do the math.

Has it ever happened before?

/me raises eyebrows and points to the announcement in every single forum. Then says no more, as per the rules.

lostexpectation

i think there a fundamental flaw in mods presuming people are muppets

Sparks

i think there a fundamental flaw in mods presuming people are muppets

Presumption of muppetry is one thing.
Being proven correct in that presumption is another...

stovelid

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, I think the Feedback forum could do with an overhaul, it can be daunting and open to trolling.

+1

I don't think I would ever come here with a gripe, and I suspect many would feel the same.

On the OP, the idea of voting on moderating decisions would be stupid and time-consuming, especially when you consider how many disputes would arise from difficult-to-mod places like Politics, AH, and Soccer.

gandalf

O'Morris wrote: »

No idea what you mean by that.

Then that makes two of us.

Considering that the thread is just a few hours old and it has already taken up three pages in replies I think you can understand why I might not want to spend time replying to each individual post.

Considering I and all the other respondents actually wasted our time reading and responding to your post I would expect you to respond fully. That is of course if you are actually interested in a discussion. No point in starting a thread in such a verbose fashion and then decide you don't want to run with it

I've read all the comments and I appreciate the feedback that people have provided. Most of the comments however revolve around two main issues - a misunderstanding of what it is I'm proposing and concernes that the system might be abused. I've attempted to address those concerns above.

Attempted badly. Look this voting scenario is a non runner. There is no way that valuable resources are going to be diverted to a lame duck proposal like this. These forums operate well and bar a minority who make a lot of noise run smoothly and provide a valuable resource and community for the majority of members.

That's what I thought. That's why I posted it here.

And you are only selectively responding to people. Why bother even posting. You're not discussing you are attempting to preach.

A bit like the EU? No need of reform?

LOL nope the EU is supposed to be democratic, Boards isn't. Live with it.

Do you mean it's not viable technically or not viable because of the risk of it being abused? I can't see either of them being a problem.

Ah it takes away time and resources that would be used in a more productive manner.

The system would require no moderation, in many cases the result will be in the moderator's favour and it would be introduced on a trial basis so it can be easily scrapped if any problems are identified. Would it not make an interesting experiment to give it a shot and see what happens?

You have already said you do not have an idea how the system works on the backend so how exactly do you know it will require no moderation? Its a lame duck from the outset.

It is not in the admins interest to have moderators that are causing a lot of hassle by being biased or heavy handed. There have been cases of mods being defrocked for inappropriate actions in the past and I am sure there will be in the future. Inappropriate action does not include locking threads that have run their course and the user wishing to carry on the argument indefinitely.

O'Morris

gandalf wrote:

Look this voting scenario is a non runner. There is no way that valuable resources are going to be diverted to a lame duck proposal like this. These forums operate well and bar a minority who make a lot of noise run smoothly and provide a valuable resource and community for the majority of members.

You're getting really worked up over this aren't you? I bet you absolutely hate the idea of having any checks on your power as a moderator. You people have a nice cozy little arrangement here that you just can't bear the thought of anyone coming along and passing judgment on your every decision. Of course I'm sure it doesn't matter to you, you're mature enough and responsible enough that you would never need to fear making an unpopular decision.

gandalf wrote:

You have already said you do not have an idea how the system works on the backend so how exactly do you know it will require no moderation?

I meant moderation on the front-end old boy! Moderation on the front-end!

Unlike you, I'm a front-end man.

gandalf wrote:

Its a lame duck from the outset.

It's obviously not very popular with the moderators but I was expecting that anyway.

gandalf wrote:

Inappropriate action does not include locking threads that have run their course and the user wishing to carry on the argument indefinitely.

I disagree, I don't think it should be the business of the moderators to determine whether a thread has run it's course or not. And if there's a rule that a thread should be closed when it has run it's course or has "gone around in circles enough times", then shouldn't we expect that rule to be applied consistently across the board? Shouldn't we expect other long-running threads to be closed as well? A quick look around the site and I can see several threads there are far more guilty of going around in circles than my thread was. Why aren't they closed? The only thing I can think of would be bias.

If a moderator has a good reason to close a thread then they should have nothing to fear from the voting system that I have proposed. Only moderators who behave capriciously or in a blatantly biased manner need to worry.

It wasn't me!

I'm not a moderator and I think having people second-guessing the decisions of those chosen because they've illustrated a better grasp of the ability to make those decisions than the people who aren't moderators is a terrible, terrible plan.

You don't get to say what you like here. The moderators decide what you can or can't say in line with the wishes of the admin, and then enforce the rules. It's that simple.

A-Trak

O'Morris wrote: »

You just can't bear the thought of anyone coming along and passing judgment on your every decision

..because most folk enjoy that?

I hear 4Chan is a great site for posting without worrying about power hungry moderation.

BuffyBot

I bet you absolutely hate the idea of having any checks on your power as a moderator.

You are working on the flawed assumption that there isn't already checks on peoples "power" (I love that word - we're moderators, not president of the USA).

It's evident from the 20million page Pighead thread not so far away from this one that moderators desicions are far from unchecked. Moderators don't always nessecarily agree with moderators (see said thread, and imagine the Moderators forums, where peoples desicions are discussed on many occasions, for and against).

There is also the category mods, SMods and Admins all of whom have tackled/supported/overturned Mod desicions on their own bat, or on behalf of others.

The problem is that you feel personally slighted here, and under the guise of some imagined greater good and big "mods on power trip" conspiracy, you're having a moment. Unfortunately, to burst your bubble - that simply isn't the case.