the people who did so will almost certainly end up facing social judgment
Hm, Oli told me that complaining about bad moderation is not allowed. Has that policy changed? If not, I don’t see how social judgement can serve as a corrective.
One advantage of a non-participant referee is that a participant referee has to worry more about social judgement for appearing partisan. (I also think participant referees are, in fact, more partisan. But the degree to which partisanship is affecting one’s moderation preferences might not always be introspectively obvious.)
A possible compromise would be to have authors write moderation guidelines for third party moderators to follow on their posts. However, it takes time to accumulate enough examples to know what good guidelines are. I suppose this is an argument in favor of centralized guideline development.
Hm, Oli told me that complaining about bad moderation is not allowed. Has that policy changed? If not, I don’t see how social judgement can serve as a corrective.
One advantage of a non-participant referee is that a participant referee has to worry more about social judgement for appearing partisan. (I also think participant referees are, in fact, more partisan. But the degree to which partisanship is affecting one’s moderation preferences might not always be introspectively obvious.)
A possible compromise would be to have authors write moderation guidelines for third party moderators to follow on their posts. However, it takes time to accumulate enough examples to know what good guidelines are. I suppose this is an argument in favor of centralized guideline development.