So this is something that I've always thought about if Era would ever be able to implement such a thing.
If we've learned anything from the recent issues involving the approaches and methods moderation takes with certain issues, and in particular, certain users, it does feel as if there needs to be some sort of system in place that isn't just solely based on a moderation staff's discretion in being the only determinant of specific issues, but a way to mediate those decisions possibly that doesn't place the entire oneness just on the moderators or admins.
In order to mitigate the pressures, my suggestion is to introduce a specific appeals panel, that is not made up of any staff from the moderation team, but would instead be a group of members (anywhere from 20-30?) that would only deal with appeals of bans.
The way the system will work is not that these appeals staff will now have to know all of the ins and outs of the moderation system, but they will provide the moderation team their opinions on a ban that has occurred, whether fairly or unfairly, and let's say, each appeal will have 3 members from the appeal staff to provide their insight on the ban, and send it to the moderation team to then determine on whether or not they overstepped, or whether or not the ban was justified. Rather than reversing the ban, the user will be unbanned, and the moderation team will then get to see exactly what the panel thought about their decisions, and they can use that instance to learn from it the next time, and understand how to improve, rather than that they were wrong.
Each time an appeal gets sent, another 3 member panel will be assigned to that case. And the pool of members will just change, let's say every couple of months or so.
We could take this further, and give the appeal members full power to overturn a ban, and as long as 2 of the 3 members who responded makes that determination to overturn, then it will be overturned. However, if we were to assume this part of the process, then the appeals staff may actually will need to be a bit more up on their policies of the site, rather than just being a more objective contributor to the final decision, since they were in essence just be a secondary moderation staff, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's a bad thing either to not have everything only fall on the moderators.
Obviously, just throwing ideas out there, but I am curious of what others think about implementing some sort of a Appeals system that isn't just in the hands of moderation, but more people from the community can still play an active role in these determinations. Of course, the process of determining who will be on the panel will still have to be worked out with how to choose those members, what qualifies, and what not, but it could be a step forward in changing the way we approach moderation here.
Curious as to everybody's thoughts on this, or possibly a similar system that can be put into place on this topic.
If we've learned anything from the recent issues involving the approaches and methods moderation takes with certain issues, and in particular, certain users, it does feel as if there needs to be some sort of system in place that isn't just solely based on a moderation staff's discretion in being the only determinant of specific issues, but a way to mediate those decisions possibly that doesn't place the entire oneness just on the moderators or admins.
In order to mitigate the pressures, my suggestion is to introduce a specific appeals panel, that is not made up of any staff from the moderation team, but would instead be a group of members (anywhere from 20-30?) that would only deal with appeals of bans.
The way the system will work is not that these appeals staff will now have to know all of the ins and outs of the moderation system, but they will provide the moderation team their opinions on a ban that has occurred, whether fairly or unfairly, and let's say, each appeal will have 3 members from the appeal staff to provide their insight on the ban, and send it to the moderation team to then determine on whether or not they overstepped, or whether or not the ban was justified. Rather than reversing the ban, the user will be unbanned, and the moderation team will then get to see exactly what the panel thought about their decisions, and they can use that instance to learn from it the next time, and understand how to improve, rather than that they were wrong.
Each time an appeal gets sent, another 3 member panel will be assigned to that case. And the pool of members will just change, let's say every couple of months or so.
We could take this further, and give the appeal members full power to overturn a ban, and as long as 2 of the 3 members who responded makes that determination to overturn, then it will be overturned. However, if we were to assume this part of the process, then the appeals staff may actually will need to be a bit more up on their policies of the site, rather than just being a more objective contributor to the final decision, since they were in essence just be a secondary moderation staff, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's a bad thing either to not have everything only fall on the moderators.
Obviously, just throwing ideas out there, but I am curious of what others think about implementing some sort of a Appeals system that isn't just in the hands of moderation, but more people from the community can still play an active role in these determinations. Of course, the process of determining who will be on the panel will still have to be worked out with how to choose those members, what qualifies, and what not, but it could be a step forward in changing the way we approach moderation here.
Curious as to everybody's thoughts on this, or possibly a similar system that can be put into place on this topic.
