We should have a collaboration of 100 mods. Players who we all know and mods trust/choose. They should be able to mass vote on reports outcomes. NV, Note, Warning, Suspension. This would make the mod's jobs easier. They just have to pay attention the reports that come up Warning or Suspension.
Each report must be voted on by at least 13 of the 100 jurors before a Mod can see the Jury Mod Verdict Stats on the report.
I fully expect the 100 jurors to take breaks, as long as 2 months or rotate. If a juror doesn't vote within three months they have openings and they lose the juror mod position. Of course this entire idea would fall at the hands of the developer to code and bring in. I am sure that the current report system needs a rehaul anyway, why not add this as well? If it works great, if there are times when it is slow or fast we can see that. Lastly, add a link in reports that role mods can add to a pastebin on reports if there is one.
Current = "Each report must be voted on by 13 people at least before a Mod can finalize it."
Change = "Each report must be voted on by 13 people at least before a Mod can access or see the Jury Mod Opinion Stats or Verdict Stats on the report."
You are literally over complicating this, lol. All it takes is ANY 13 out of the 100 to vote. There could be 50 there could be 17 there could be 99. It just shows the actual mod what the % is.
NV = 3% Note = 52% Violation = 40% Ban = 5%
It would still be 100 players the mod team can trust, it is an opinion from those 100.
If is like ... NV = 60% Note = 38% Violation = 2% Ban = 0%
Then the mod is going to just NV and walk away.
Here is the rub, my troll idea here is actually NOT bad if you just follow it and stop adding more to it.
The mod still has the power to read it and make their verdict. They can disregard the Jury if they want.
13/100 people should be online to vote.
I doubt all 100 people a mod team chooses will ALL be so bias as to save someone. Yeah, you might get some bias. If 10 people out of 100 have seen a player being a douche and add a little more bias against them, oh well, this site used to have negative karma for a reason.
1. People will be bias., it won't work. 2. Also there are so many reports so if you need 12 players each time to handle them it's a mess. 3. And if you appeal, what then lmao.
Randomly draw 12 at a time to compose a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury will adjudicate 10 separate reports.
For each report, all other players from the game would be given subpoenas. Their accounts are locked until they come testify before the Grand Jury.
Once the Grand Jury has heard all the evidence for a report, they vote for an outcome. In the event of a tie vote, a hung jury will be declared and the report will be held over for the next Grand Jury of 12, who will call in the previous witnesses to testify again.
This process can be repeated until an outcome is reached.
If you wouldn't trust the average user to hammer right in a game would you really trust a random pool of them to make moderating decisions without bias
I'm sure none of the visits were from you refreshing the page a whole bunch of times on MafiaGod and your 79 alt accounts you always upvote your own threads with
Someone said maybe the jury system should only be used on controversial reports, which is the exact opposite of my idea, but it isn't a bad idea either.
I can't see how this wouldn't get loads of up votes, I mean everyone should want to be a Jury Mod. It would actually show the mods who is able to Mod correctly and not, by showing them stats of how people voted and how good a mod and who wouldn't by their correct rate.