Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Let us have a transparent review system.
Issue
According to the answers provided by the community staff to this post, I conclude that one of the Codidact policies is empowering moderators to take some required actions in some situations and allowing users to request the community team or a "Review Panel" to review the token actions.
However, such a review system may not satisfy skeptic users because they may think that the community team and the review panel are friends of some moderators and no fair action will be taken against them (Such a belief exists among some SE users).
Suggestion
In order to have a transparent review system without any possible suspicion, I want to suggest that any suspended user be allowed to bring their issue up on Meta.Codidact together with the following additional condition:
- All details concerned with the suspension will be provided in the meta post in case the suspended user approves publicly that their related private information is allowed to be provided publicly.
Advantages
Some advantages of this feature are mentioned:
-
Codidact can be distinguished by its transparent review system from other platforms like SE.
-
Codidact users will become optimistic about fairness of actions token by moderators and staff.
-
Since all details can be shown to all, moderators, the community team, and the review panel will try to do their best and no privilege abuse from the authorities will be unlikely to be happen.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Anyone who has been remotely close to any form of moderator position, or a leadership position in general, can tell you that all forms of disciplinary actions must be carried out privately.
Nobody responds well to getting a temporary suspension or a warning. They will react far more negatively if this is handed out in front of an audience.
It would be like putting out fire with gasoline; there will be a pie/dung throwing contest in no time. With a system like that one you propose, there will be constant drama, angst and moderator frustration.
If you have any doubt about this, go to Stack Overflow Meta and go read "why have I been banned" posts. The vast majority of them are not constructive and did not help anyone in any way, including the poster.
The review panel is a sound idea. It will consist of users, not of moderators/staff. In the case where moderators make mistakes or abuse their powers, it can be addressed by this panel, by reviewing cases in private.
0 comment threads
In order to have a transparent review system without any possible suspicion, I want to suggest that any suspended user be allowed to bring their issue up on Meta.Codidact together with the following additional condition:
In fact it's not a suggestion. Idea? Maybe, but key details are missing. Ability to create Q won't help by itself. Someone still have to change status of suspended user.
How do you see an implementation? How are you going to separate those who are innocent from let's say trolls beforehand? (Spoiler: there is no way).
If one got suspension then, it means, they should not interact publicly within some time. With no exceptions. Private channels is a separate story. That's expected and that's right.
Review Panel seems like an optimal way to resolve conflicts. Small set of unbiased members whose duties is resolving exactly such situations. Perfect solution.
Besides, if user cannot trust anyone then why would they participate in a community at all ?
Again, in worst case member has a chance to bring attention through Meta after they suspension ends.
0 comment threads
1 comment thread