-41

I've seen and experienced several examples of mis-moderations. Cases where people with high reputation misuse their power to shut down the voice of others, even when there was no intended vandalism or verbal abuse. Such cases suggest that there is an ultimate authority of what is Truth -- those with the power.

It seems that with the right voting model, reputation could be allocated perfectly and no moderation would be needed -- even in cases where vandalism or intended misinformation is given.

Do people think it is possible and/or worth trying? To solve this problem solves a > $1Billion dollar problem for the world.

So:

  1. Do you think it's possible?
  2. Is the potential gain for the world as high as I think?
8
  • 5
    Do you mean diamond moderators, who are elected to have special powers, or high-rep uses, whose experience earns them privileges?
    – bobble
    Jun 19 at 18:14
  • @bobble: Ultimately both, a proper voting model should be able to do away with all such "moderation". For example, people could "spend" their reputation if they wanted more power than the up/down vote.
    – Marxos
    Jun 19 at 18:17
  • 19
    Responding to: It seems that with the right voting model, reputation could be allocated perfectly and no moderation would be needed -- even in cases where vandalism or intended misinformation is given. What about the privilege of reversing serial downvotes? Who gets to use that? Deleting harmful hurtful comments? What about abusive, low quality and wrong answers? Moderators can zap them immediately on sight. What about sockpuppets, you know users who create multiple accounts to upvote their contributions. How would removing moderators resolve that problem? -1 you need to think this thru Jun 19 at 18:33
  • 18
    We generally advise people to stick around for a while to get to know how the sites work before suggesting improvements. I note you've been a member for over 7 years, and yet still haven't achieved the trusted user privilege. I'm not clear what problem it is that you're trying to solve here. Could you be specific - as just saying "mods/high-rep users are misusing power" doesn't match my experience at all. Please be specific about the exact nature of the problem. Jun 19 at 18:41
  • 3
    Can you be more specific about the examples in your question? What are you alluding to? Dupe hammering on Stack Overflow? Deleting of answers? Deleting of comments? Voting cabals by a small clique on a smaller site (effectively voting cabals, not organised)? Or something else? (But without "Edit:", "Update:", or similar - the question should appear as if it was written right now.) Jun 19 at 22:53
  • Yes, late answers are (unfortunately) usually not well received, no matter how well researched, well written, and relevant. This is a common experience. Better write a blog post instead. A late answer is far too risky. It is a pity. Jun 19 at 23:17
  • Though Physics is a more likely candidate. Jun 19 at 23:49
  • 1
    Or on Academia? It is quite a feat to get that many downvotes on relatively late answers (as attention would already have died down (I presume)). I don't think this proposal is from first principles. Jun 21 at 9:39

2 Answers 2

19

No, impossible.

Moderators are exception handlers. Moderators handle cases normal users can't.
For example, Cleaning up spammers, sockpuppets, abusive accounts and harassment.

Normal users vote on content quality. Just as it doesn't take a helicopter pilot to see that a helicopter landing upside down is being piloted poorly, most bad questions don't require domain knowledge to determine they're of low quality, and what's wrong...

There's no magical system to suddenly make everything perfect. If that were anywhere close to possible, we'd already have it.

5
  • I wasn't suggesting that vandalism and personal abuse be handled by the voting model, although, in theory, it possibly could. All users vote on content quality, so I'm not sure why you suggest otherwise. there are so many problems with this site, I need to postpone further comment.
    – Marxos
    Jun 19 at 19:27
  • 19
    Yes, you are: "What's the best way to make a voting model for SE so that moderators aren't necessary?" and " Ultimately both, a proper voting model should be able to do away with all such "moderation"." You're suggesting moderation shouldn't exist, @Marxos.
    – Cerbrus
    Jun 19 at 19:28
  • Why the acerbic tone? Are feeling threatened by not having power over other users as moderators? I was giving a graded solution to the issues that most sites use moderation for. Your body uses a complex process of trust and reputation to make a complex system work. The only time it seeks conscious input is when it encounters an unknown. Vandalism and personal abuse (like some moderators show here), are known quantities in the 21st century. They can be solved.
    – Marxos
    Jun 20 at 2:29
  • 12
    'personal abuse (like some moderators show here), are known quantities in the 21st century. They can be solved'......umm......Twitter, Facebook etc - not solved yet:( Jun 20 at 2:59
  • 14
    @Marxos: You keep repeating that there are solutions, that this "can be solved"... Go on then, provide a solution? Because you're not giving a "graded solution" All you're doing is saying we have a "tone", assume we feel threatened somehow, and frankly, insult our intelligence.
    – Cerbrus
    Jun 20 at 5:26
-20

Yes, it is possible.

First, allocate votes based on tags, keeping track of where people have received recognition of authority by the crowd.

Second, reward the voter by keeping a "bank account" of how much they've given their feedback. These "credits" can be used to get more power than the standard +/-1 for tags in which the user has a balance. In other words, if a person wants to use some power over a post tagged with "computer security" then they must have a positive balance on that tag in which to do so.

That's a start.

5
  • 9
    It's a horrible start, as it prevents any new sites from getting content voted upon. stackoverflow.blog/2010/10/19/vote-early-vote-often
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Jun 19 at 18:31
  • @Tinkeringbell: With the right voting model and tagging system, you don't need to make new sites. Would you like to work it out in chat? Then, we'll see what you really know.
    – Marxos
    Jun 19 at 18:32
  • 5
    Also, that's not what you abuse community wiki status for, that's only for posts that are truly a community effort.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Jun 19 at 18:32
  • 13
    This seems to be for some sort of popularity contest, rather than that which works or is based on the most recent best quality research, that which suits the popular view will dominate. How the internet works at the moment in fact, and what distinguishes SE from the rabble by providing a much better quality alternative to this. Jun 19 at 18:34
  • @JiminyCricket.: Interesting, this very topic was debated in early American history, the problem of mob rule. How do you suppose they addressed it?
    – Marxos
    Jun 19 at 18:41

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