[Q] Errors & Moderation panel size?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

May I please inquire, as a percentage of appeals, how often moderation has changed their minds about any decision on the basis of new evidence/arguments submitted to them?

May I please also inquire whether moderators think that a single person, on their own, is likely to overturn the decision of a single other person if they are not quite sure of their position, or that the new evidence may not be quite sufficient? And why does moderation not use a larger panel of judges who would be less afraid of coming to a new decision on the basis of new evidence?

Thank you for your time.

[Sedgistan]

1. We don't have those stats, and we're not going to get them either.
2. If you're asking whether a first appeal has ever been granted, then yes.
3. An unnecessary waste of time.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you for your detailed reply.

For the second point, I was asking whether moderators think that a single person, on their own, is likely to overturn the decision of a single other person if they are not quite sure of their position, or that the new evidence may not be quite sufficient?

May I ask, if you don't have any statistics/evidence to say that "moderation not use a larger panel of judges who would be less afraid of coming to a new decision on the basis of new evidence" would be "an unnecessary waste of time", how do you reach that conclusion? Has anyone tried it?

May I please further ask whether anybody scrutinizes or checks the activities of moderators here with the aim of improving the standard of justice? Is there any agency that checks complaints?

(And, just to check whether I'm wasting my time, may I finally please ask whether all suggestions of ways to improve the standard of justice here will automatically be turned down? Am I wasting my time trying to offer suggestions to help make NS better? Are moderators wasting their time dispensing virtually haphazard justice? Are you interested in making NS better, or is this as good as it's ever going to get?)

Thank you again.

[Leutria]

You seem to be unaware that final appeals (made by GHR, not on the forums) are reviewed by 3 mods not involved in the original case including one senior moderator. Furthermore I am quite sure I have heard accusations of mods abusing their power are taken seriously and reviewed by the admin (if my memory is not being faulty).

So basically, you need to be concerned, the mods are doing their job and a system involving multiple mods reviewing cases and ensuring they are not abusing their power is already in place.

[USS Monitor]

Policies do get adjusted from time to time, but we don't need to create a new panel of judges to review appeals. The existing appeals process works well enough, and it's better for security purposes not to give behind-the-scenes access to more people than necessary.

Max and [violet] keep an eye on the mods to make sure we're not abusing our powers.

[USS Monitor]

You seem to be unaware that final appeals (made by GHR, not on the forums) are reviewed by 3 mods not involved in the original case including one senior moderator. Furthermore I am quite sure I have heard accusations of mods abusing their power are taken seriously and reviewed by the admin (if my memory is not being faulty).

So basically, you need to be concerned, the mods are doing their job and a system involving multiple mods reviewing cases and ensuring they are not abusing their power is already in place.

This is accurate.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you all very much. My only remaining question for the moment is, if we don't have any statistics to say that larger moderation panels (at all stages) would be "an unnecessary waste of time", can anyone please explain how that conclusion has been reached?

Thank you again.

[Common Territories]

Thank you all very much. My only remaining question for the moment is, if we don't have any statistics to say that larger moderation panels (at all stages) would be "an unnecessary waste of time", can anyone please explain how that conclusion has been reached?

Thank you again.

Adding levels of bureaucracy increases wait time. Period. It would be like going out shopping and having to visit five stores that sell the specific items on your list; you save hours of your time (and probably money at the end of the day) just getting all your crap at Walmart or some other superstore. Economics and prices aside, the point is is that the time it takes to respond to reports, the security aspects of handling such information/tools, and the fact the Mod Team is comprised of volunteers makes this argument of juries for every little report means a slow "justice system."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you for your addition. Can moderation please provide their views? You see, I have provided a strong analytical argument that a one-person appeal is less likely to reach another conclusion than it ought to be.

(In short, to clarify my question, if a single person, on their own, is likely to overturn the decision of a single other person if they are not quite sure of their position, or that the new evidence may not be quite sufficient, and we don't have any statistics to say that larger moderation panels (at all stages) would be "an unnecessary waste of time", can moderation please explain how that conclusion has been reached?)

Thank you very much again.

[Frisbeeteria]

Final appeals are addressed by a minimum of 4 uninvolved mods, including at least one of our 4 Senior Moderators. Often times if it's a difficult decision, we'll see as many as 10 mods involved. Most of the time, the issue is cut and dried, and even 4 mods is overkill.

As for why we don't routinely have a larger pool, we have a limited number of mods, and those mods have a limited amount of time to devote to this site. At any given time, up to half the team can be dealing with real world issues and be unable to provide guidance. At all times, NS mods tend to specialize in certain aspects of the game or forums. I routinely avoid RP and NSG arguments so that I can be available for final appeals. Others will avoid the WA or Tech issues due to lack of personal knowledge, or simple disinterest.

Why do we do it this way? Because our appeals process has been satisfactory for over a decade. There's no change in how the game or the forums work, so there's no obvious need for change. The fact that you're personally dissatisfied by an outcome does not change that.