Current Events > It would be cool if there were a "peer review" option for moderations

(+) Yeah! (+)

Let's just get out of the way, that I haven't truly had a moderation for years (other than a recent justified one for posting a topic on the wrong board), so this is not a reactionary topic over a moderation I recently received or anything

But I see people complaining about being wrongfully moderated and then it being upheld by another mod and how bogus it is, etc

What if once you got moderated, the user could choose a peer review option to dispute? Then, that would activate a poll, where 20 random users (let's say out of a pool of users who have logged on over the past 24-48 hrs so no inactive accounts would be selected) get to review the post, review the topic, and vote on whether the moderation should be upheld?

If it's a tie, another mod can be the tiebreaker.

Good or bad idea?

I think it's a bad idea because it would just encourage shit posters to make more alts to try and bias things in their favor.

Edit: more fundamentally, Reddit being the shit show that it is has more or less convinced me that the gamefaqs approach to moderation is far superior than any sort of peer-managed system.

s0nicfan posted...

I think it's a bad idea because it would just encourage shit posters to make more alts to try and bias things in their favor.

it would be a random drawing of users, only they would be able to see the poll. It wouldn't be like a topic poll that shows up on CE or anything

I get your point though that Vegy could be moderated and 15 of his alts could be randomly pulled

I used to like meta mod, it was kind of interesting to see what actually gets modded on here

AlCalavicci posted...

where 20 random users

These would not be peers.

A moderator's peers is other moderators. The system is in place to allow multiple moderators to review.

s0nicfan posted...

I think it's a bad idea because it would just encourage shit posters to make more alts to try and bias things in their favor.

AlCalavicci posted...

I get your point though that Vegy could be moderated and 5 of his alts could be randomly pulled

This is easily solved by restricting it to a very high user level / karma threshold so the "jurors" are only pulled from a pool of users who have been using the site for a very long time, and by implementing a one-per-IP system

wtf are you guys getting modded for so much?

imagine caring.

Saw peer review and my skin stood up straight

ughhhhhhhhh

TMOG posted...

This is easily solved by restricting it to a very high user level / karma threshold so the "jurors" are only pulled from a pool of users who have been using the site for a very long time, and by implementing a one-per-IP system

You would need to have some really strong incentives in place for that to work. As someone that would be in that pool of users, I can't see myself spending half of my time on GameFAQs adjudicating mod appeals for the fun of it. I imagine most users that would fit your criteria would rather just be a mod.

Robot2600 posted...

wtf are you guys getting modded for so much?

Usually for telling racists, transphobes, blatant trolls, mask-off Nazis, sexists, homophobes, and other assorted idiots that they are, indeed, idiots

Because, you know, that's worse than the aforementioned issues

AlCalavicci posted...

it would be a random drawing of users, only they would be able to see the poll. It wouldn't be like a topic poll that shows up on CE or anything

What they mean is that trolls would create a flood of alts to win the lottery of being allowed to vote. Those with the most accounts would have better odds at the raffle. The current system of allowing moderators to vote on whether to uphold or overturn the moderation is much less open to bad faith manipulation. There's no single mod who controls the disputes, we all vote and if a majority says overturned then it gets reposted. If the vote says it is indeed a violation then it stays moderated.

CyricZ posted...

These would not be peers.

A moderator's peers is other moderators. The system is in place to allow multiple moderators to review.

The "peer" is to be a peer of the moderated user, not a peer of the moderator

s0nicfan posted...

You would need to have some really strong incentives in place for that to work. As someone that would be in that pool of users, I can't see myself spending half of my time on GameFAQs adjudicating mod appeals for the fun of it. I imagine most users that would fit your criteria would rather just be a mod.

So make it opt-in. You're only potentially pulled from the pool if you sign up to be.

s0nicfan posted...

You would need to have some really strong incentives in place for that to work. As someone that would be in that pool of users, I can't see myself spending half of my time on GameFAQs adjudicating mod appeals for the fun of it. I imagine most users that would fit your criteria would rather just be a mod.

Good point that I hadn't thought of. There are probably so many moderations and the number of users are dwindling on the site that I wonder how often people would be pulled for such a poll

Uta posted...

What they mean is that trolls would create a flood of alts to win the lottery of being allowed to vote. Those with the most accounts would have better odds at the raffle.

I know, I literally addressed that with the second part of the post you didn't quote lol

NightingaleMD posted...

Saw peer review and my skin stood up straight

ughhhhhhhhh

Lol.

TMOG posted...

So make it opt-in. You're only potentially pulled from the pool if you sign up to be.

Possibly, but the criteria is now getting so specific that the Venn diagram of people who apply and get accepted to be moderators and the people that would opt into this kind of system is almost a circle. We are like one or two conditions away from just reinventing the current mod system.

Thats a bad idea because popular people would just get their friends to side with them in every dispute and theyd be able to get away with everything. And if they found out that someone voted against them they might hold a grudge and wouldnt remain impartial when it was their turn to judge that person

I realize that it would probably end up helping more people who deserved to be moderated, than it would help people who probably shouldn't have been moderated, though.

We don't allow users to repost violations, so allowing users access to viewing violations seems like a bad idea. It was the reason behind axing metamod back in the day.

How did metamod work?

hopefully it wasn't anything like metapod, which is mostly useless

ba dum tssh

AlCalavicci posted...

How did metamod work?

hopefully it wasn't anything like metapod, which is mostly useless

ba dum tssh

It was a separate thing users could access that pulled all active moderations into a sorting pool. It displayed the moderations without all the relevant context, and the punishment levied. You then went through and decided whether the punishment fit the moderation. It was to be a measure of accountability for the mod staff. It was a decent idea that I don't see working now, because a lot of our moderate users have since left. We now have people who just don't care and people who care entirely too much.

AlCalavicci posted...

How did metamod work?

hopefully it wasn't anything like metapod, which is mostly useless

ba dum tssh

Metamod didn't actually have any affect on the outcome of moderations, but everyone could browse through recent moderations and click whether they thought it was fair or not.

Sounds like most people wouldnt favor this, so Ill hold off on mentioning it to SBAllen when we meet for lunch next week

Imagine just loosening the terms.

TailsStillRight posted...

Imagine just loosening the terms.

Shouldn't you be banned
Again