-35

There have been multiple times that moderators have near instantly closed valid questions.

This authoritarian action is completely undemocratic.

I've found more than multiple times that questions have been reopened.

See Is there a keyword or operator for "nor"?

@KilianFoth is right. Nevertheless downvotes should be for bad questions, not for questions we don't like. Furthermore, there are already three votes to close the question because it would be "opinion based", despite the question being totally neutral and non controversial (either there are such operators in some exotic language or there are't).

And:

4 "primarily opinion based" close votes for a question that is definitely not opinion based? WTF? That is one of those cases were I really wish there were a "keep open" close vote option. – Heinzi Feb 7 '18 at 7:51

Moderators are granted moderation power based on their reputation that comes from asking or answering questions not on any moderation experience or merit. Meaning they could be great moderators or terrible moderators. Either way they are given that power without training, guidance or experience.

The users and typically new users have reported despair at topics closed or moved to other communities. Since late last year Stack Exchange has claimed it wanted to prevent that.

I suggest that part of that effort users should be able to vote or grade the quality of moderators, moderators who again, could be good, great or terrible at moderation. We don't know!

If users with moderation power (moderators) can close questions, users without moderation powers should be able to grade them.

Not a duplicate of provided questions (see comments).

enter image description here

Since you down voted my issues every year I post on them I'll give you some replies you can use to save time.

CANNED REPLY 1:
Your idea is stupid and you're stupid. Your question is a duplicate. We've heard it many times before. Instead of taking that as a sign for improvement we'll defend the existing system the way it is and dismiss your concerns. Our system isn't oppressive, you're just a liar. Even if it is we have plenty of users. Your issue is not important us.

CANNED REPLY 2:
Thank you for your suggestion. If you took the time out of your day to mention it it must be important to you. If it's important to you then it's important to us and it's not our desire to cause trauma to our users. While we get a lot of feature requests we can't address them all. We'll take your suggestion into consideration as we make improvements to our sites.

marked as duplicate by Sonic the Anonymous WizHog, Pikachu the Parenthesis Wizard, Nathan Tuggy, Cody Gray, angussidney Mar 25 at 5:55

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Thanks Sonic. This is related but suggests a solution not mentioned in the question linked – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 3:37
  • 3
    If users with moderation power (moderators) can close questions, users without moderation powers should be able to grade them. Moderator closure is not final; users can vote to reopen questions closed by moderators. This effectively "grades" their action. – Sonic the Anonymous WizHog Mar 25 at 3:37
  • 2
    @SonictheWizardWerehog This doesn't seem to have anything to do with diamond moderators in particular, just regular users with close privileges. – animuson Mar 25 at 3:38
  • 7
    Just a point over emotive language - terms like "authoritarian" when it comes to ... well powers folks get over a meritocratic system seem a bit overwrought and dramatic. – Journeyman Geek Mar 25 at 3:59
  • @SamuelLiew So according to that question, "What checks are in place..." the system is fine the way it is and I should just live with it and give up hope of a democratic solution? – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 4:01
  • "It seems to be a duplicate" @PikachuthePurpleWizard Can you explain why you think it is the same question? – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 4:04
  • 2
    On MSE, questions don't necessarily have to be exactly the same to be closed as a duplicate; it's also allowed if the question it's being closed as a duplicate of explains why the proposed feature should not be implemented. The question clearly states how abuse is found and handled, which also explains why this feature is not necessary. Now can you explain why you believe this is not a duplicate? – Pikachu the Parenthesis Wizard Mar 25 at 4:06
  • Hi @PikachuthePurpleWizard. I've provided examples and in those examples evidence that questions get mis moderated. Those questions suggest that the tools on the site handle the problem and I'm saying that the way things are now is causing frustration for the user. My question is a feature request. The other questions are not. People can vote on this suggestion or discuss it. Therefore it stands on its own. – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 4:14
  • 4
    I think the crucial problem with this idea is that the specific implementation relies heavily on allowing those with no demonstrated expertise or familiarity or commitment to the site to make meta-judgements on whether tough, complicated moderation actions were correct or not, and what's more, to usually make those judgements in cases where the high-rep user has little or no personal involvement, and where the judging low-rep user has a lot. (Since they will probably only grade when their own question or answer is moderated in some way.) That's completely backwards. – Nathan Tuggy Mar 25 at 4:23
  • 12
    Strange example. That question you linked has never been closed, and there were no moderators involved. There might have been a few votes cast, but then that's evidence that the system is working: they never reached the threshold, and the question never got closed. – Cody Gray Mar 25 at 4:28
  • @CodyGray That's an example and I linked to that because the comments from users mentioned that absurdity of the down votes and voting for it to close. That question wasn't closed but many other questions have been and by moderators. Sometimes a single moderator. But I guess if you want to ignore people or drive them away then continue on. ...I mention how frustrating it is every other year and still no change. BTW This response decreases the loyalty value meaning people will jump ship when something else comes along. – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 7:07
  • 5
    You're linking curation (or moderation) activities to being welcoming. Those are two completely separate concepts; posts are curated on their own merits, and not doing so in the name of, "welcoming", means our high level of quality drops incredibly quickly. Welcoming has nothing to do with maintaining the site; it just means not being rude or snarky to users in comments. – fbueckert Mar 25 at 13:17
  • 2
    Not directly related to your question, but adding "Not a duplicate of provided questions" to the end of your question likely isn't going to do anything to help it from being closed. Next time if you add a section explaining why the alleged duplicate's answers don't answer you're question, you'll have a better chance of swaying the voters. – scohe001 Mar 25 at 13:48
12

In a sense - we trust folks with sufficient experience on a site will use their powers appropriately.

Usually this works out well. Sometimes it doesn't.

The fact that questions are reopened and that we can discuss these on per site meta is kind of the democratic system of moderation at work. That folks can vote to reopen (and bring these questions to attention via the reopen queue or meta) is the check against bogus closevotes from people who have earned the right to vote to close.

There's no real way to divorce reputation from the abilities on the site. If a user consistently votes to close in bad faith, we might have a word or suspend, but generally reputation is the best way to determine subject matter expertise (i.e., whether something is on or off topic, or the quality) available to us.

The users and typically new users have reported despair at topics closed or moved to other communities

A new user might not have the best idea of what's on topic. It is probably useful to help educate users on why something was put on hold. Migrations - well depends on the situation but it does seem the kindest option.

So more or less, the checks and balances are built into the system.

  • I appreciate you taking a time to respond. So what you're saying is that the system is fine, "...there's checks and balances" and so there's not need to upgrade or improve it? "...generally reputation is the best way to determine subject matter expertise..." I agree on expertise but not moderation. Those are two separate things. Did you ever have a programmer promoted to a manager? They are completely different skill sets. Maybe there could be some way to let users grade that? – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 4:08
  • 1
    Well - essentially any alternative is less democratic. How do you select for moderation expertise? Does it scale? Also, I'm sure there's many programmers would prefer a manager who gets what programming is, over a PHB.... – Journeyman Geek Mar 25 at 4:31
  • s/might not have the best idea/usually has only a vague clue/. Too much? – Nathan Tuggy Mar 25 at 4:50
  • "...generally reputation is the best way to determine subject matter expertise..." reputation != expertise, reputation != moderation ability, reputation == asked or answered one or more questions on the site (participation points). – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 25 at 7:20
  • 1
    @1.21gigawatts: "so there's not need to upgrade or improve it" It's not so much that there's no need, but any "upgrade or improve" idea has to actually prove that it is better than the current system. And what you've proposed is not an improvement. – Nicol Bolas Mar 25 at 18:18
  • 3
    @1.21gigawatts: "reputation == asked or answered one or more questions on the site (participation points)." Nonsense. You only gain rep from participation on sites with terrible moderation. On sites with good moderation, you gain rep by participating well; the better you participate, the more rep you get. That means that you know what good content looks like because you've created good content. And therefore, you get more abilities to decide what good content is for the site. What's the problem? Other people can decide differently from you. – Nicol Bolas Mar 25 at 18:22
  • 2
    @1.21gigawatts: It seems to me that what you want is not "democracy" (which we already have), but explicit rule by least offense. If someone has not proven the ability to decide what good content is or isn't, they should still have the right to declare that their content is good, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. That's not good. Nobody posts content that they don't think is good, so many of them will immediately assume any down/close votes are wrong. Giving them any kind of binding power over such curation makes no sense if you care at all about getting quality content. – Nicol Bolas Mar 25 at 18:24
  • @NicolBolas "It's not so much that there's no need, but any "upgrade or improve" idea has to actually prove that it is better than the current system. And what you've proposed is not an improvement." That's not science works. You said to prove it and then without proof or evidence yourself declared that my proposition is not an improvement. In a scientific background you would propose a hypothesis and then you would test it and see if it's better or worse. Since I can't implement this feature request myself I can only suggest it to the council of ricks. – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 26 at 7:03
  • The idea that "desperation" even comes into play reveals exactly how flawed an understanding of the site some newcomers have. Why should they be in a position to demand that content they like should stay up? But it's not like closing a question is the end of the world anyway - many closed questions remain up and continue to (vaguely) inform visitors about what's wrong with them, if not outright help solve the problem they were posted to solve in the first place. Calm down, sleep on it, post a new and better question if it doesn't exist already (and if it was on-topic in the first place). – tripleee Mar 26 at 7:33
  • @tripleee So you're saying there's nothing wrong with the site the way it is and that we're simply writing our questions wrong and that it doesn't bother me or other users and that we are just liars? I joined this site 8 years ago. – 1.21 gigawatts Mar 26 at 7:47
  • I don't see how my position could be construed as saying there is nothing to improve, but your proposal seems misdirected on a number of points. – tripleee Mar 26 at 7:50
  • @1.21gigawatts: "In a scientific background you would propose a hypothesis and then you would test it and see if it's better or worse." This test would no doubt be performed in a controlled, cordoned off environment, not in your house, right? That is, you wouldn't do it to a live, functioning website; you'd do it elsewhere. You're asking to do such tests on the site itself, where people are currently already participating, thus potentially disrupting the site. Such a test would have to be for something really worthwhile to be worth that kind of disruption. – Nicol Bolas Mar 26 at 12:21
  • @1.21gigawatts: "we're simply writing our questions wrong and that it doesn't bother me or other users and that we are just liars" What's happening in your head is up to you. But as for whether you're writing your questions wrong... yes, generally speaking, if your questions are significantly downvoted and/or closed, there is probably something wrong with them. – Nicol Bolas Mar 26 at 12:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .