And should be done in less than 6 or 12 hours? Doesn’t this give to much power to one mod? Probably going to get my mod license revoked here. But it is worth saying. And I am not specifically noting NSQ even the communities I mod. I can go in and I am the deciding factor, isn’t that too much power for one person? What if they are on a power trip or something.?
If someone posts something truly offensive or illegal, it doesn’t make sense to schedule a meeting next Thursday when a quorum can be gathered to vote on whether or not to remove it.
Rules are rules, and if you don’t trust someone to enforce the rules without having their hand held, they shouldn’t be the enforcer.
Mistakes will be made. Moderation is never entirely perfect. If one person keeps making mistakes, they should be removed.
Each mod has been granted the same responsibility, to deal with issues promptly. Whichever one sees the problem and responds to it first is just as entrusted by the community as any other mod.
If you feel that a specific mod is not capable of making decisions for the good of the group, then there should be a discussion about whether that person should be a mod.
If you sometimes disagree with the decisions made by other mods, just let it go. You won’t agree with everyone 100% of the time. Leaving or deleting one post isn’t the end of the world. If you notice consistent bad calls, then see above.
It was just in a certain instance I mod. That I am the only one taking care of the reports. And there is no love in why it was denied or a congrats on something the mod team missed. Basically it kind of seems like the start of a dictatorship where one mod who pays attention can rule as long as they are the first on it.
Luckily the stakes are mega low. If someone makes a poor mod decision, that’s easy to reverse. If you want a team’s members each able to work independently but aligned, then you achieve consensus by other means: front-loading the work of creating a shared understanding such that any independent decision made according to the shared understanding would be stable regardless of which team member made it. Ultimately, this is a process relying on trust and cooperation. If a team member violates that trust or plays poorly with others, there should be a process or result. And what this consequence is should be baked in at the create-shared-understanding phase so there is no excuse for bad behavior within the team and an easy out if there are problems.
Because of the way it was built. You could make your own version that does what you want though.
