God forbid I don’t want to start drama when I could be misrepresenting people.
The fact that this dilemna exists is the REASONING for why there needs to be more transparent moderation.
I’m so sick of the moral grandstanding of moderators in this thread, acting like they are perfect beings who haven’t ever been biased in decision making or made incorrect judgements.
The issue at hand is trust within the current moderation, some people will have more of it, some people will have less of it. But at the end of the day, in order for trust to be built, there needs to be a way for people to see that moderators are taking correct action or are not acting with bias.
At the current situation, people with high trust in moderation, will assume that moderators are acting to the best of their ability in solving situations, where as people with low trust in moderation will assume the opposite.
I can provide an example of this if you want, but I think my point has come across.
The downsides for having an access to the information is minimal, with the only reasonable rebuttal being that it can be exploited by bad actors, however I personally think that this would be negligible and is mostly based on hypothetical.
Personally, I think that trial running the implementation of a more transparent moderation policy is the best way to solve these hypotheticals, as it can run through the downsides and as we have more access to information we can make a better judgement off it.
