Would you be in favor of a panel of 3 forum arbiters being created to help resolve forum disputes, especially those involving a mod or admin? Selected members would require 80% approval in a poll of forum members and serve as long as they are willing. They would have zero day to day mod or admin powers and would only serve in this function when a dispute was brought to them. Majority decision of the panel is final in all decisions.
0 voters
Did you mean for the poll to be anonymous?
No, but is there a way to change that?
I think the only way is delete and redo
Not without nuking all the current votes. Could we think about doing this after ratifying our rule implementation process?
Yeah I reset it.
I agree, we should only implement this if a large majority is in favor.
The three arbiters should judge whether the final outcome is a sufficiently large majority.
I thought that might be the case and edited to clarify.
How about a panel to resolve disputes before they happen?
I don’t think this idea adds anything of value and can’t envision a scenario where it functions as described, ie, some dispute between a mod and a poster is brought to the panel and is resolved to their mutual satisfaction. The panel will back the mod at least 95% of the time (likely correctly so) and those inclined to complain will just feel further aggrieved.
You might be right, but I think there is value in someone who feels like they have a legitimate dispute having an avenue to raise their issue other than the person that they have the dispute with.
This is why you must be on the panel
All-InFlynn would be a good justice. Meb, econophile, and spidercrab are other nonpartisans that seem like good choices to serve as associates under Beetlejuice. As would smrk4, come to think of it.
I started writing this post intending to present some minor quibbles, but now that I’m thinking about it I have some actual questions.
[ Actual question ] What does the bolded actually mean in practice? I’m mentally applying this panel to some of our recent/current disputes, and I’m not sure what resolution would actually entail.
[ Quibble ] I guess if this panel is going to have real power, I’m on board with a reasonably high threshold of approval to be part of it. But 80% is really high, and could make it hard to fill out a full panel.
[ Quibble/question ] This might be okay, but could turn into a pretty substantial problem for the panel. What if forum members come to a conclusion after a while that a panel member is biased? Seems like it could undermine the credibility and usefulness of the body.
Can you present the case for having it be “as long as they are willing” vs. the limited terms that we are discussing and (seemingly) heading toward for moderators?
[ Question ] This connects to the first question: what will this group actually decide? That a temp ban was/was not warranted, in the case of someone who is unhappy with it? Whether or not to temp ban someone, in the case where someone wants a member banned and others don’t? “Deciding” that there is/is not bias in moderator decisions (what would that mean)?
I hope you get the idea. Maybe someone who is enthusiastic about this proposal could take us through a couple scenarios to demonstrate its utility?
For my part, I think the proposed panel could be helpful. But it could also fail to improve things, and conceivably even increase the “drama” just by virtue of creating more venues/opportunities to “be wronged” and make a fuss about it.
Maybe if the panel’s role within the overall governance of the site were fleshed out more I’d be able to have more of an opinion on whether or not it’s a good thing.
Note that the proposal as written here does not mention any specific members (e.g. beetlejuice), and does not include any structured hierarchy (i.e., no “associate” panelists “under” another panelist).
I’m aware. I have no doubt that beetle juice will be voted in.
Sure, but it runs against the notion of mod rotation if the appointments are permanent and it doesn’t make sense to have regular rotation of such a panel. It can only be remotely credible if everyone on it is widely acknowledged as a trusted arbiter, so it can never have regular rotation on account of most of us are dummies and a-holes. It seems like we were just about to shrug off the hierarchical set-up we inherited from 22 and at the last moment we’re setting up something just like it.
Presumably no-one will be bringing temp-bans or post deletions to this panel. It’s going to be long chains of actions and the contexts in which they were taken etc. I think if someone is going to feel bitter about something like that, they’ll only remain bitter about it in a way worth caring about if the other poster is a permanent mod. Let someone still be pissy a year later about a string of post deletions and a two-day holiday. If they’re just mad at another poster, that’s fine. Who cares? The problem is when they’re mad at someone who still is and will forever remain a mod.
The infinite wisdom this post displays indicates that on the contrary, you must be on the panel.
As I said above, I think regular mod rotation would abate if not eliminate the aspects or cases of that that can be abated or eliminated. There will always be someone who thinks it was bullshit and totally unfair how they were dealt with. I think that’s much much less of a problem if the mod they’re mad at eventually stops being a mod (even if they become one again later for a while etc).
I can’t express how ridiculous this is. You’re going the wrong way. This site doesn’t need another committee powerless to do anything but navel gaze. It needs someone to do the obvious moderation and talk about it a whole lot less.
God imagine thinking for 1/10th of a second that this would do anything but make it into more of a flaming dumpster fire of drama than it already is.
I got banned recently for being a dick while making my point. I didn’t bitch I just took it. If I can take my ban like a grown up and not work the goddamn refs why can’t everyone else?
This site is big enough that it needs refs and they need to do their job to the best of their ability. If they blow a call every now and then that’s life and it’s a volunteer position. People who get banned a lot and are ignored by a large % of the user base should get perma banned. We elect these refs every three months and attacking them isn’t allowed except within a week or so of the vote for new refs. This is mostly to make sane people willing to take the job.
None of this is dramatic and none of this should be controversial. In fact it’s so obvious that I think the real motives of anyone opposing regular workmanlike moderation are suspect. Go ahead everyone ban me for the high sin of questioning other posters motives. I think the anti moderation crowd is anti moderation because they know that they should and probably would be moderated almost anywhere else.
Oh and very very obviously there should be a no personal attacks rule. I like to make a nice personal attack as much as the next person, but it’s becoming very obvious that some of us like them a little bit too much (or take them a bit too personally) and because of that we can’t have personal attacks. I wish we could have nice things too.
You should run for mod