[FEEDBACK] More transparent moderation

[jail]

your honor he is a member of the informed minority he can reclaim those slurs

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

the coven wants you to believe the word “WITCH” is a slur… but it is not…

[Brakuren]

@YoubutWorse

there is no evidence that this issue EXISTS in the first place

…

yeah this is bullshit

I have information, but I’m purposefully being vague to avoid drama

[Brakuren]

@YoubutWorse

There is also no evidence that favortism and rule bending has ever occured from the mods and the idea you are suggesting this as a solution to a non-exisistent problem that could exist doesnt really make sense as its not one that does exist.

I have evidence it has occured

[Brakuren]

@YoubutWorse

The moderators here are excellent and they uphold the rules of community extremely well.

Only some of them

[Brakuren]

@YoubutWorse

but changing the transparency of mod actions doesn’t fix that supposed issue, and the issue itself hasn’t been shown to exist in any capcity.

This has already been answered in thread

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

i think everyone knows

[Daeron]

@Brakuren

If you have a moderator that has their actions influenced by peer pressure, then they shouldn’t be a moderator.

End of story

Sure. I don’t see how that’s relevant at all to what I said, though. If they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure, why are you insisting that making their decisions public would lead to less favouritism?

[Brakuren]

I never said to make decisions public.

Informing the reporter is what I am suggesting

[Amelia]

This sounds like something you would bring up to the admins rather than vaguely state in the thread.

[Daeron]

Sure, I can reword.

If they aren’t susceptible to peer pressure, why are you insisting that making the reporter informed of their decision would lead to less favouritism?

And in any event, where the reporter is informed and there is an “issue” they are likely to go public with this issue, and my previous statement would probably be applicable anyway…

[Daeron]

@Brakuren

I have evidence it has occured

If you actually have compelling evidence that it has occured then you should be confident that if you came forward, people would believe the same

The only concern you should have is if your evidence isn’t compelling

[Clove]

Transparency

[Brakuren]

It would be more compelling if I knew what the results of reports were :)

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

Something something circular logic

[Daeron]

Then release the evidence publicly and everyone else can decide if it’s compelling enough, or if not, that it is compelling enough that the results of specific reports be released?

And if it’s not compelling enough to release publicly, why are you making such bold statements? I find irony in that you are opposed to “naming and shaming” and yet proceed to make claims criticising the integrity of multiple moderators on this site with evidence you are unwilling to share, and for all that we know might not exist at all.

This is not a good look.

[Brakuren]

Because the evidence is circumstantial, and while I have made a conclusion on my own based on it, it is also reasonable to discard the evidence or I can be misinterpreting it.

The evidence would be less circumstantial if it was possible to known what the actual fuck happens with reports, because currently my evidence is just circumstantial and based off assumptions because I have no fucking clue what happens with the reports.

Ultimately, I have the conclusion that it is better to try to push for making moderation more transparent, to prevent either misrepresentation, or the ability of moderators to be biased in their decision making, mostly due to the fact that I have experienced this exact scenario in the past. And by coming forward with information, the situation became worse.

[Daeron]

@Brakuren

Because the evidence is circumstantial

@Daeron

why are you making such bold statements? I find irony in that you are opposed to “naming and shaming” and yet proceed to make claims criticising the integrity of multiple moderators on this site with evidence you are unwilling to share, and for all that we know might not exist at all.

This is not a good look.

[Daeron]

If you aren’t going to release any evidence, there is no evidence to discuss. In everyone else’s eyes, you’ve made quite bold accusations that are completely baseless.

[ElizaThePsycho (Willow)]

I have a list of 257 Communists in the state department and i want them GONE!
No you don’t get to see my list