Timeline for Abrupt change in moderation staff?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2016 at 19:48 | comment | added | DVK | +1 and I deeply wish there was a way I could bounty this answer the way I can on Meta.SE. This is a pure distilled essence of what a great moderator's approach to binding actions, especially closure, should be. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:50 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @200_success For a reference on How It Should Be Done (IMHO) see the various meta posts about the somewhat successful but sadly now defunct Bad Tag Audit. Much of that work was done by moderators (including many closures), but the process of selection was community-driven & extensively (maybe overly) discussed. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:47 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @200_success I dispute that all web hosting panels are off-topic. I also note that the actions suggested by the accepted answer on the post you linked to have not been taken (canonical answer as to WHY they're off-topic, which these should have been closed as duplicates of, was never created or selected). I don't object to the policy, but I do object to the method by which it was enforced. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:44 | comment | added | 200_success | @voretaq7 Web panels are indisputably off-topic, and there is firm community consensus. The Notice-and-Comment period was long over, and action was overdue. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:43 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @200_success I'm also in no way suggesting that EVERY moderator action needs to go through notice-and-comment, but there's a line somewhere between "I unilaterally closed your question because it was low quality, go read the help center and fix it" and "I unilaterally closed 100+ questions because they're really not on-topic" where I think at least a Meta post is warranted so there's somewhere to point people if they don't like the action being taken. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:37 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod |
@200_success The reward is a lower level of false positives, and an actual community-driven process. There's no a meta post we can point to where the "crap" was reviewed by the community and a consensus reached, nor an obvious consensus of N high-rep users in this case - there is just an action taken unilaterally (or at least without what I would call adequate documentation). The federal government engages in "Notice-and-Comment" rulemaking for precisely this reason.
|
|
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:28 | comment | added | 200_success | Moderator actions may be swift and powerful, but they are nearly all undoable. The community has decided to close a class of questions en masse. Do we really want to waste five high-rep users' time reading each of those questions to confirm each case? What's the reward for wasting time like that? | |
| Apr 12, 2015 at 8:41 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @kasperd: Regarding non-binding close votes for mods: This has been discussed (several times, I guess), but Atwood and Shog9 decided it to not be necessary. I completely disagree with their reasoning and curse every day about this. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 15:37 | comment | added | Shog9 | It's 24 votes per day, @kasperd. Maybe you're thinking of 20 reviews? This is structured such that you can participate in review (using between 0 and 20 votes there) and still moderate other questions. Note that all of this is malleable if there's good reason (such as 1000 old questions that need to be closed in response to the result of some community decision). | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 14:29 | comment | added | kasperd | @MichaelHampton So maybe what we need is users who can vote more than 20 times per day but still requires five votes to close a question. Would it help if users with more than 20k reputation were exempt from the 20 votes per day limitation? | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 14:26 | comment | added | kasperd |
This statement caught my attention: I DO however have a problem with questions being zotted with modlike powers (which is why my close activity dropped off pretty precipitously when I became a mod). This got me wondering whether it has to be that way. Is it possible for a moderator to not use their moderator power to overrule everybody else with their single vote? I would say it ought to be possible for a moderator to decide to vote but in a way where it still requires five votes to complete the vote.
|
|
| Apr 11, 2015 at 11:50 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | I agree with Mike, we only get x amount of close votes for the day, and it takes 5 from us to knock a question out. In comparison, even if we assume .1% of collateral damage from this (hypothetical figure) that's 5 legitimate questions, and over 500 questions that needed closing which would require 2500 community votes (assuming no mods voted), and if we assume a voting core of 100 users, then it could be done over 5 days assuming something similar to full time work. that's unrealistic, in comparison, it took n00b 2 months to accomplish by himself, so it's likely it would have taken us longer. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 6:38 | comment | added | user9517 | Sad to see yet another ♦ that only turns up when there is drama. far too many of them these days. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 3:16 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | In principle I would tend to agree, but the spanner in the works here is the community doesn't have enough close votes for this. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 2:49 | history | answered | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |