@Catija I just read it again, and I really think you want to say that "If CM1 determines these actions may be a CoC or mod agreement violation, they will contact the moderator [...]". But I get how @Sklivvz might read it as he described, so would changing the wording to something like that be possible?
The thing is... we can never completely know that a violation occurred... we can only expect two CMs to agree that it seems to have occurred. The process docs are kinda cut and dry but... um... if there's anything I've learned in a year here... nothing is really cut and dry. It may not say "send five emails back and forth and have a private chat about the situation with the mod"... but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
One thing seems sure to me @Catija, you cannot reliably know that a violation occurred without involving the mod, sharing the evidence and hearing their point of view.
Doesn't mean it will happen either, though. The only thing that can reasonably be expected is what the process says; if folks don't believe that SE will go any further than that, I wouldn't blame them.
@JourneymanGeek I know most of them in person, but I would not trust them not to make mistakes. It's not a matter of character, it's a matter of human fallability.
If it is, as I've already pointed out to terdon... please help us realize that... but we explicitly state, as I quoted earlier, that we will talk with the moderator who's involved.
What you wrote is what's quoted above. I'm not judging your intentions :-)
E.g. "CM1 at their discretion will either abort the process or involve the accused mod so evidence can be gathered and reviewed together before other CMs are involved"
What's quoted specifically says that we'll "[prompt] them for their perspective/context/reasoning"... If that somehow doesn't mean "we'll explain the situation and ask them for their side of the story"... we need to do better.
instead of "If CM1 determines a CoC or mod agreement violation occurred, they will contact the moderator about whom the complaint was raised and inform them of the ongoing process, prompting them for their perspective/context/reasoning,"
Agreed, and once there's a new version I'll be happy
Hopefully
Also you need to share all information with the mod
not merely inform them of the process
But this is but one small example of the larger problem: it does not read like you want to work with the community on checking violations. The message is, pretty clear, "trust us, you don't need to see anything, we'll do the right thing"
3
The problem is @Catija that we do not trust you completely, nor we should, nor should you trust yourselves.
What are you going to do when you make a mistake?
There will be no third party making this process trustworthy
This would have stopped the last demodding from escalating in its tracks
There's some confidential info that we may not be able to share with a mod due to risk of them knowing who contacted us with the information and potentially trying to harm that person.
And forget @Catija. I could trust her, personally, to at least do her level best to be fair and honest. But what about Alex, Jo and Jean who'll be hired tomorrow? I'm thinking of this too much in terms of the CMs I know and respect. I have no idea who a CM will be tomorrow. For all we know, the whole "CM department" could be outsourced to some other company in the future.
@Sklivvz Come on, that's not fair. If a mod has gone over to a user's house and tried to break their door in the middle of the night, I don't want SE to tell this mod who complained! We can't demand that all information be shared all the time.
The problem is finding the line and trusting SE that they've drawn the line fairly.
If I'm accused of threatening a user like that, and can't see the specific, at the very least I would like you (or someone like you) to guarantee me that the evidence exists for example
And some sort of NDA-like thing (not an actual NDA, I don't think any of us really want to make this a legal thing) to allow some representatives of the userbase to see the evidence makes a lot of sense.
I mean there are 2 important outcomes to this process: 1) that the virdicts be correct within reason 2) that the community trusts the virdicts to be correct
For example, imagine instead we had a computer "guaranteed to give perfect judgements" but we could not verify its process, would it work?
Would people not get up in arms once they disagree with a virdict?
The appearance of being fair is equally as important as the substance
It comes down to trust. There was a time when I would actually trust SE to be telling me the truth if they told me they're sure this mod needs to be removed. As things are, though I agree, more openness is needed. At least for the vast majority of cases.
And more openness is needed for the future in any case. If this is something for the ages, like.
@JourneymanGeek Think of the time, in a distant future, when we're all dead and gone and the only relic of the olden days is Shog's disembodied head floating in a jar of formaldehyde issuing wise proclamations. How can a young, wet-behind-the-ears mod who doesn't remember the living, breathing Shog trust his verdicts? Why would she, in the absence of any evidence?
Iām sorry... weāre not really in a position to make any headway on trust with this. 90% of these cases will be immediately dismissed,10% will get investigated and only 1% will get public... when a mod is removed. Weāre always going to be the bad guys. We want to make this as reasonable as we can but we also need to respect the privacy of the people involved. If thereās ways we can improve... weāre open to it... but we can only use ideas we get or have.
No, protecting the privacy of the others involved is paramount. Agreed. But some way of opening a window into the process would be really helpful as well.
For instance, at least when the problem is a conversation in chat, the relevant transcript should be shared with the mod. No need to specify who complained, but the specific conversation should be.
@Catija frankly I know this is repeated internally as a mantra but it's not correct. CMs are trusted becaused they signed a contract. Mods supervising can equally be trusted for the same reason.
But Iām struggling because I really feel like people are assuming we want to remove all mods from their posts. Which we donāt. We have always made a best effort to protect mods as best we can. I felt it as a mod. I understand it feels like yāall are under attack because of how this happened. Iām not happy with it, either. But Iām doing what I can to alleviate it.
@Catija I don't think you are. I admit I am less clear about the nebulous concept of "SE inc." But that's not really the point. If this is official, then this should be something that doesn't depend on the good relationship between the mods and the CMs.
@Sklivvz Ah, to be able to see details of the ongoing mod-removal? I guess that makes a bit more sense. I'd still refuse to sign it, but at least that doesn't mean quitting.
How about this: when a user has made a complaint about a mod, 2 random users are selected (maybe other mods, maybe random established users, maybe something else). The complainant has the right to reject these and ask for another random choice, but once a pair has been deemed acceptable, the details of the complaint can be shared with them and they can act as community oversight.
I just want to make sure a user who feels bullied or harassed can complain without fearing that the person they'll complaining about will find out. I don't want people to be afraid of retaliation if they complain.
@HDE226868 Please, jump in! And I don't really know. I'm spitballing. I just agree with Sklivvz that some community oversight is needed.
@terdon I do like it; it does seem to promote transparency. I might suggest one regular user and one mod, to represent both the mod team and the rest of the community. All levels of users are involved. (Well . . . I guess two levels. But 2 > 1.)
@Catija I raised a pretty important set of points on the moderator team q and a and no one reached out for clarification. I repeated those points in my resignation, and no one reached out for clarification or to ask what I meant. At this point at least publicly it doesnāt appear as if anyone takes these sorts of concerns seriously. Feedback goes in, silence comes out.
@JourneymanGeek randomly, and at least one of the mods should come from the site in question. They should sign the nda and if they choose not to it gets randomly selected again
We have 500 mods, we canāt trust 6 of them to impartially weigh and work with the CMs to ensure justice and fairness?
