Dissenting Opinions in Rulings

[Mallorea and Riva]

Would players be interested in having dissenting/minority opinions attached to rulings to open things up a bit more in terms of transparency? If so, how should they be presented? My thought is that after a ruling there could be an attached dissenting opinion if one exists, outlining its reasoning. To prevent shopping around for mods the dissenting opinion would remain anonymous. Let me know your thoughts on all of this.

EDIT: This was brought up elsewhere at some point and I believe my inclination was to be against it, but after going through the various arguments on a number of issues I'm personally split.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would y'all be comfortable including who's opinion was which in the release? In years last, you guys have been very careful to obscure who was making the decisions, especially on some unpopular decisions.

If so, there's really no reason not to include it as spoilered, non-Voice Of Mod additions, so nobody thinks the dissenting opinion is binding. Could be included with the decision proper.

[Mallorea and Riva]

It's still under discussion with my fellow mods on that point. One concern is that people will try and shop around for mods who may appear more sympathetic to their cause etc which is something to be avoided.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's still under discussion with my fellow mods on that point. One concern is that people will try and shop around for mods who may appear more sympathetic to their cause etc which is something to be avoided.

Absolutely valid, of course. If it ends up remaining an anonymous decision, the dissenting opinion could still be posted as a non-VOM add-on for us legal-minded types. Then, if that Rulings suppository Depository ends up complete, the dissenting opinion can be found easily.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yes, I think this would be a great idea, and it would go a long way in breaking up the "hive mind" aspect of WA moderation.

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

sometimes transparency is a good thing and in this case it fits the bill. however, i think the dissenting opinion's writer should be revealed also. shopping around for sympathetic opinions could be dealt with separately.

[Imperium Anglorum]

At least tell us the voting margins (5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4) would be somewhat... disconcerting.

[John Turner]

It's still under discussion with my fellow mods on that point. One concern is that people will try and shop around for mods who may appear more sympathetic to their cause etc which is something to be avoided.

I'm sorry, but how would it be possible to shop around for a mod? It has been stated by many times that any ruling comes from all the available mods that were available at the time.

[The Blaatschapen]

sometimes transparency is a good thing and in this case it fits the bill. however, i think the dissenting opinion's writer should be revealed also. shopping around for sympathetic opinions could be dealt with separately.

And what are your suggestions for dealing with that then?

[Nobreloen]

I suggested this before in one of the threads, and therefore naturally am very welcoming to the idea.

While I'm worried about the dissenting/majority opinion thing especially if there's a minority of the mods writing the stand (unless you include all the mods) - given that having all or most mods agreeing means that it is impossible to appeal against a decision unless there are sensible grounds to do so. Unless that's the point - to prevent arbitrary rulings AND arbitrary appeals?

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

sometimes transparency is a good thing and in this case it fits the bill. however, i think the dissenting opinion's writer should be revealed also. shopping around for sympathetic opinions could be dealt with separately.

And what are your suggestions for dealing with that then?

im still a new player and dont know all the mechanics but maybe make it a punishable offense. interpersonal relationships would make that a sticky situation tho. first some warnings, then a ban for the player and removal of mod status for the one ultimately responsible. this is if theres a consistent pattern of favoritism or sympathies that cross the border into the realm of an overly biased decision. honestly i dont think it should be a problem since u guys are talking over decisions anyways and asking second opinions. i noticed in some users sigs they feel like theyve been wronged already anyways maybe this would lessen that.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's still under discussion with my fellow mods on that point. One concern is that people will try and shop around for mods who may appear more sympathetic to their cause etc which is something to be avoided.

I'm sorry, but how would it be possible to shop around for a mod? It has been stated by many times that any ruling comes from all the available mods that were available at the time.

Theoretically, the timing of the request could help. If you didn't want Ard to weigh in, for example, one could make a point of asking now, when she's busy with Real Life. Since theirs something of a pattern with moderator presence, it could be done. It just wouldn't be terribly efficient.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm sorry, but how would it be possible to shop around for a mod? It has been stated by many times that any ruling comes from all the available mods that were available at the time.

Theoretically, the timing of the request could help. If you didn't want Ard to weigh in, for example, one could make a point of asking now, when she's busy with Real Life. Since theirs something of a pattern with moderator presence, it could be done. It just wouldn't be terribly efficient.

This or the potential of people coming onto the emergency IRC channel and targeting a Mod. I personally am not overly worried about it, to be frank.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dissenting opinions being anonymous would encourage, I think, more free thinking and dissent. So I'm all for having them be anonymous.

[John Turner]

Theoretically, the timing of the request could help. If you didn't want Ard to weigh in, for example, one could make a point of asking now, when she's busy with Real Life. Since theirs something of a pattern with moderator presence, it could be done. It just wouldn't be terribly efficient.

This or the potential of people coming onto the emergency IRC channel and targeting a Mod. I personally am not overly worried about it, to be frank.

That is a stretch. Instead put together a committee like an actual Secretariat or Supreme Court. They can make a decision and mods can freely give their dissenting opinions. I hate to say this but if mods are that scared of a little criticism of their decisions, they probably shouldn't be mods. This whole thing of decisions remaining anonymous is what creates a hostile environment towards the mods in the first place. (i.e. The deletion of a perfectly legal proposal from quorum, yet the identity of the perpetrator was intentionally withheld.)

[The Dark Star Republic]

This "shopping around for mods" idea you've conjured up continues to be a fiction. When has it ever happened? And if one of the mods is so incompetent that players routinely wish someone else would rule on their proposal, then the better solution is just to fire her.

Would players be interested in having dissenting/minority opinions attached to rulings to open things up a bit more in terms of transparency?

Transparency wouldn't be my concern here, so much as understanding the process. It's so difficult to get you guys to explain your rulings sometimes that seeing how you convinced each other might be helpful in allowing us to discern your mighty wisdom.

[Bears Armed]

Post the minority opinion, if there is one: I agree, nice idea.
Keep the identities of the Mods involved secret: Again, I agree.

[John Turner]

Transparency wouldn't be my concern here, so much as understanding the process. It's so difficult to get you guys to explain your rulings sometimes that seeing how you convinced each other might be helpful in allowing us to discern your mighty wisdom.

Precisely. An actual breakdown of a ruling would be step in the right direction instead of "X" violates "Y" so therefore your proposal is illegal, leading the unnecessary appeals just to try and get the reasoning behind that ruling.

[Frisbeeteria]

This "shopping around for mods" idea you've conjured up continues to be a fiction. When has it ever happened?

It's never been much of a factor in the GA, but it's a constant annoyance in the Game Mod back office. Mod A makes a ruling, which is then appealed. Mod B handles the initial appeal, which is then "final appealed". Mods C-F (and sometimes more) must then line up and review the two prior decisions ... which almost never ends it, as the offended party then tries to email admin to overturn the "clearly biased mods' opinions". We've got 2-3 DOS players who've been playing that game for literally years now. It's a colossal waste of time.

So no, it's not fiction. The Anonymous Hivemind approach of unified mods has been relatively effective gameside, so this would be a significant step beyond that.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This "shopping around for mods" idea you've conjured up continues to be a fiction. When has it ever happened?

It's never been much of a factor in the GA, but it's a constant annoyance in the Game Mod back office. Mod A makes a ruling, which is then appealed. Mod B handles the initial appeal, which is then "final appealed". Mods C-F (and sometimes more) must then line up and review the two prior decisions ... which almost never ends it, as the offended party then tries to email admin to overturn the "clearly biased mods' opinions". We've got 2-3 DOS players who've been playing that game for literally years now. It's a colossal waste of time.

So no, it's not fiction. The Anonymous Hivemind approach of unified mods has been relatively effective gameside, so this would be a significant step beyond that.

That happens a lot in the General forum (especially in any thread involving Russia/Ukraine) but I've not ever really seen it happen in the WA. We know that some mods see things differently but because we all ultimately want a consistent rulings base, it doesn't make much sense to go "shopping" in the way that it does for Generalites, who simply want to (at least so far as I can tell) use mods as weapons against their ideological opponents.

[Christian Democrats]

I favor dissenting opinions.

Maybe, as a compromise, the top of a ruling could list the moderators who participated in it.

Participating Moderators: A, B, C, and D
Majority Opinion (anonymous)
Dissenting Opinion (anonymous)

[Sciongrad]

I favor dissenting opinions.

Maybe, as a compromise, the top of a ruling could list the moderators who participated in it.

Participating Moderators: A, B, C, and D
Majority Opinion (anonymous)
Dissenting Opinion (anonymous)

I agree, I think this is a pretty fair compromise. Although I, too, think the "shopping for mods" concept is a very poor argument that isn't really grounded in reality. I'd even say it's sort of offensive to insinuate that players are so petty that they'd pander to mods that might agree with them or harass ones that don't.

[Elke and Elba]

I favor dissenting opinions.

Maybe, as a compromise, the top of a ruling could list the moderators who participated in it.

Participating Moderators: A, B, C, and D
Majority Opinion (anonymous)
Dissenting Opinion (anonymous)

A pretty good idea - a bit like SCOTUS just without the 'who supports what' - making for shopping bias to be gone?

As reiterated before the mods needs to answer this: will the appeal process be removed? Or will there always be backup mods to facilitate appeals - which doesn't make sense since they should be a bigger group than the original ruling group?

I personally would like a no-appeal-unless-error kind of thing practiced in courts (they actually have to find a valid reason to appeal other than just I don't like it if I remember correctly).