Today I noticed that two question were put on hold by Diamond Moderators using their 'Mod power'

Why didn't the Avengers use the Mind stone to change the minds of the Black Order or Thanos? was put on hold by 1 normal user and then by a Diamond Moderator.

which among the 17 powers will Jack Jack retain when he becomes adult? was put on hold by 2 normal users and then by a different Diamond Moderator.

The 1st question was reopened quickly while the second is on hold. So Mods took 50% correct decisions today. Instead they could have let the users decide & keep their correct decision making report sheet better.

A diamond moderator should step in and use his mod powers on controversial/abusive/spam questions or answers but not for harmless questions and answers which can be dealt by the community. It takes 5 users to put a question on hold but a Diamond Moderator can do that on his own. If done too frequently, it borders on mod-abuse.

What does the community & the moderators themselves think about this? Should Diamond Mod powers be used in special circumstances only (for harmless questions)?

| |
  • 1
    If it's off topic then why moderators should hold there hands? Mod are not only for handling controversial/abusive/spam but also they should close posts when they are off topic. – Ankit Sharma Jun 26 '18 at 7:30
  • 1
    As I mentioned, they can use normal power to vote & wait for 4 more to agree. Moderaters can't be all knowing beings & their decisions are not 100% correct. – KharoBangdo Jun 26 '18 at 7:35
  • 1
    Mod's vote is binding for closing and after your edit it's already getting reopen. In its first state it was way opinion based when closed, I am still not convinced but community can decide. – Ankit Sharma Jun 26 '18 at 7:38
  • 7
    @KharoBangdo mod's can't use regular close votes. – JAD Jun 26 '18 at 7:41
  • I am not arguing that. I am arguing about mod power in innocuous question – KharoBangdo Jun 26 '18 at 7:42
  • 1
    I don't see how either version of the question is POB, but instead of having this discussion framed around a single question, this might serve a broader discussion of whether mods should use these powers so liberally. Yes, questions can be reopened again, but the initial closure will tank the chances of hitting HNQ and/or getting some good exposure. – JAD Jun 26 '18 at 7:48
  • @AnkitSharma is what JAD is saying correct?. If is it, then I didn't know about it. I thought you only activate mod powers when needed. – KharoBangdo Jun 26 '18 at 7:58
  • But yes, although unintentional on my part asking the question, we should discuss mod powers being used so frequently – KharoBangdo Jun 26 '18 at 8:00
  • 7
    The point is, the question wasn't innocuous. It was an entirely speculative "why didn't the characters do what I would have done?" question. You can't just call your question "innocuous" and free it from any proper judgement by the site's standards. Moderators close questions that aren't appropriate for the site, that's what they do. The question does seem to have improved a little, though. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 26 '18 at 8:34
  • 1
    @NapoleonWilson don't try to misunderstand my question. Innocuous here means harmless. Primarily opinion based questions are harmless. They must be closed as such but by users. It's is ones primary opinion to close opinion based questions. If 5 people agree on an opinion, it is good enough to be accepted by the community. A harmless question is rude/abusive/spam/trolling/blatantly off topic & mods must move in immediately to close without relying on other 4 opinion. I can debate semantics if you want – KharoBangdo Jun 26 '18 at 8:51
  • 1
    @KharoBangdo See this declined feature request on MSE – JAD Jun 26 '18 at 11:06
  • 2
    @NapoleonWilson I don't see how that is different from any other "Why didn't?" question on this site. – JAD Jun 26 '18 at 11:33
  • 3
    "The 1st question was reopened quickly while the second is on hold. So Mods took 50% correct decisions today." - That's quite a misinterpretation (and misrepresentation, too) of what happened and how SE works. If a question gets closed and later gets reopened after a considerable improvement that doesn't mean closing the question was somehow "incorrect", it means closing the question actually did what it was supposed to do, put the question on hold until it gets improved into validity. The question didn't just get reopened after everyone realized their mistake, but after it was improved. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 26 '18 at 14:40
  • 1
    Maybe we should rather enlighten that user on how to flesh out his questions a little more sufficiently. Granted, you could blame the moderators and the rest of the community for not being a little more proactive in this regard. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 26 '18 at 14:43
  • 1
    See, I don't have a version. If we all had a version of "harmfull" that we could write down on paper, life would be a ton easier. The closest definition I have is "questions that should clearly be put on hold", but that's as helpful as nothing. If we're not arguing about the specific questions (and I agree that might be futile), then that's the most accurate definition we can reach. But I'll see if this question garners some traction that makes it worthwhile to answer. I know you're not targeting me specifically, though, don't worry. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 26 '18 at 15:18

The 1st question was reopened quickly while the second is on hold. So Mods took 50% correct decisions today.

The second statement in no way follows from the first. The first question seems to have been re-opened after it was edited. The mod who closed it initially then would seem to have made the correct decision to place the question on hold pending the edit that made that question more appropriate. That suggests that mods made 100% correct decisions in these cases.

(emphasis added below)

A diamond moderator should step in ... but not for harmless questions and answers which can be dealt by the community.

There is no SE or M&TV.SE concept of "harmless" or "harmful" in terms of how content should be treated by mods or by the rest of the community. This is a concept you have invented for this meta question. A better way to propose a distinction here would be to explicitly suggest it, such as a meta question along the lines of "Should off-topic and opinion based questions be treated differently from spam/abusive/vulgar questions?" Then inside that meta question, you could propose to call the former type "harmless" and the latter type "harmful". Short of something like that, there's no reason why I or any other user should consider a spam question any more harmful to the SE model than an opinion based question.

Overall, I think we should all keep in mind the following:

Questions are put On Hold, not "closed" by votes and mods

On hold means, "we are not allowing answers to this question until the question itself has been made better and up to the standards of the site". It does not mean "we are permanently removing this question from consideration".

It is totally understandable to feel that an on hold question has been completely and permanently rejected from the site, but it's just not the case. On hold questions are paused and awaiting edits to address problems. That's exactly what happened with one of your example questions, and it shows the system working exactly as it is intended to work.

Edit based on a comment:

The community could do that on its own. Why don't the mods wait a bit for community to reach to that decision.

This seems to suggest that the mods and the community are two different entities that should have separate roles and duties on the site. The mods are a part of the community, which is why it's called "community moderated". To say mods should do one thing and the community do another thing doesn't make a lot of sense. Remember, if five users with enough rep vote to re-open a question put on hold by a mod, then the question is reopened. So the mods don't have the power to single-handedly shut out the rest of the community, in most cases.

| |
  • Just stating that when I got to the question, there were no edits to the question & 2 reopen votes. I would have reopened it as it is. I edited it because I thought more context would gather upvotes to the question. If the community agrees that my edits made the question from primarily opinion based to factual then although I wouldn't agree with that decision but I would accept it. – KharoBangdo Jun 26 '18 at 16:38
  • 1
    I think you have understood "community moderated" backwards. It means community at large participates in moderation in addition to Mods unlike sites like Reddit which are "moderator moderated" where only mods do moderation & the community has no moderation power – KharoBangdo Jun 27 '18 at 5:17
  • 1
    You quoted a part of the question & edited out the part where I make a clear distinction between what is harmful & what is harmless. So the quote is lacking context. I urge you to add my full quote & not part of it. – KharoBangdo Jun 27 '18 at 5:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .