-29

Premise

All of the moderation systems for SE/SO (thinking of both the community moderators and users with reputation-based privileges for deleting posts) are based on either the opinion of one person or distributed votes over time (e.g. 6 flags as abusive by normal users, or one by a moderator). There isn't anywhere in the system designed to hold meta-discussions about whether should be deleted for a moderation purpose (excluding Meta), and these voting by numbers could potentially be compromised by sock puppet accounts if someone is particularly motivated to remove a post or potentially harass a user.

Feature request/question

Has the Stack Exchange network considered pulling live juries of users who are online at any given time to discuss contentious questions that moderators deem worthy of further discussion? I'm not sure how frequently these come up for moderators, but this could be a specific flag or tag that moderators can mark to submit it to a jury of users.

Since there is a reputation system, this jury could be balanced to require more users of a lower reputation or fewer users of a higher reputation (or some other system). For a more "democratic" jury, there could be equal representation of users across various reputation points. For a more reputation-based jury, there could be minimum reputation requirements to participate in these discussions.

Tactically, the system could ping users randomly (or screen them for any reputation pre-requirements), pull them into a live chat room, and have to come to a consensus for a contentious case. The record of the jury discussion could be made available to provide more accountability for moderation decisions, and it would be potentially a way to also earn reputation points as a benefit. Since this would be way more time intensive than the current system, this could be used sparingly only for the most contentious cases.

10
  • 17
    Isn't that literally what Meta is for, but over a longer period of time so that all users have the opportunity to participate? Dec 6, 2021 at 0:29
  • 8
    Tactically, the system could ping users randomly - some people just aren't interested in content curation/moderation... If I were one of those - that would be a rather frustrating experience Dec 6, 2021 at 0:35
  • 7
    Have you visited any of the per-site metas, people often post "why was this question closed?" and related questions about closure policy. (I notice that you've not any other accounts associated with this meta one, so can't point you towards a particular site). Dec 6, 2021 at 0:36
  • 3
    Mods are elected by their community to deal with stuff on behalf of the community so the community doesn't have to.. Separately, Meta Stack Exchange Chat does ping mods for flags no matter what site/room its on.
    – Criggie
    Dec 6, 2021 at 1:50
  • "require more users of a lower reputation or fewer users of a higher reputation (or some other system)" what if there is literally only a handful (less than 5) of active users on the site? Dec 6, 2021 at 2:20
  • @MetaAndrewT. then such a small site is unlikely to ever graduate. I presume there's a cleanup process that removes the never-gonna-fly sites eventually.
    – Criggie
    Dec 6, 2021 at 3:28
  • @Criggie well, it's already graduated, but many users had left since then, thus leaving the mods having to actively moderate the sites. Dec 6, 2021 at 3:33
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? What about meta-meta Stack Exchange? meta.stackexchange.com/q/125115/282094
    – Rob
    Dec 6, 2021 at 6:43
  • @MetaAndrewT. that sounds like a site in a death spiral. I don't know of any SE site that has outright failed like that.
    – Criggie
    Dec 6, 2021 at 9:10
  • This is a good idea. Something is missing between blind close/delete votes and full-blown global meta questions. A separate meta place for an individual post (perhaps even for comments), as a replacement for the primitive comments. Dec 6, 2021 at 12:16

1 Answer 1

16

There isn't anywhere in the system designed to hold meta-discussions about whether should be deleted for a moderation purpose (excluding Meta)

Why exclude Meta sites in this discussion? This happens quite often on Meta Stack Overflow, and any user with the participate in meta privilege can raise a question there, potentially about their own posts. Meta is the tool for handling contentious posts, and moderators can be the arbiters of the community's decision there and enforce the community's consensus.

these voting by numbers could potentially be compromised by sock puppet accounts if someone is particularly motivated to remove a post or potentially harass a user.

If you notice this kind of behavior, flag a post that you feel demonstrates this behavior for moderator attention with the "In need of moderator intervention" reason and fill in the text box with an explanation so a moderator can look into it. Mods have tools to determine whether this kind of foul play is at hand, and they also have resources available to ask for help from the Community Team, or other moderators, if they're unsure.

As to this feature request, this feels... Over-engineered. We already have a way to handle contentious posts beyond the eventual consensus our current tools grant us (only one close/reopen/delete/undelete vote per person per post), and that's our Meta sites. If there's contention over whether a question should be closed, deleted, locked, etc. users can always raise a question on that site's Meta and ask about it, and folks can always weigh in how they feel it should be handled. Further, answers to questions raised on Meta can be voted upon (granting more passive users a voice), and a community consensus can be reached over time.

1
  • 2
    True - and a meta post can even discuss and reference the meta site itself. No need to have recursive layers of recursion recursively recursing <BREAK>
    – Criggie
    Dec 6, 2021 at 1:47

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