Current Events > Imagine if our justice system worked like the GameFAQs moderation system.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Judge: A police officer caught you jaywalking and issued you the death penalty. Your only argument is that you didn't commit a crime. The punishment is at the sole discretion of the original police officer.

Defendant: What? That's crazy.

Judge: I'll take that as your dispute. Has the jury reached a verdict?

Lone juror: I voted to confirm a crime was committed.

Judge: Death penalty it is. *slams gavel*

that's why i don't like practicing in front of this judge

Youre forgetting the lone juror is the original cop who committed the false accusation. Its also likely the officer or judge would purposely misinterpret what you said. You said you didnt commit a crime. I take that to mean you said you commit a crime. We will proceed to the death penalty immediately.

Police Officer:
https://youtu.be/zBkuNpgACH0

But the justice system already functions like GameFAQs wtf

You missed the gathering of peasants whose only goal is to hurl stones at the judge, officer, and the accused.

Dont forget that criticizingthe judge, jury or police makes the Secret Police spirit you away forever.

reminds me of that video of a woman crying in court about the court cop and the judge just ignoring it and telling her to shut up or go to jail

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/7/4/AAFof7AAC1DG.jpg

ModLogic posted...

reminds me of that video of a woman crying in court about the court cop and the judge just ignoring it and telling her to shut up or go to jail

Link to the video please because I want to watch it

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

wrong

Make Error a judge.

It'll be glorious.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

youve said that its a simple majority that causes a moderation to be upheld which isnt good enough because then if 49% of people disagree with the moderation its still upheld even though something is very obviously wrong with the decision. you're saying you dont know how many votes it takes? with the amount of mods on this site it cant be too many. you get one dispute and often you dont even know what rule your post has violated so you're going in blind and arent even allowed to ask a simple quest "why was this moderated". And then you have some mods who use the system as a "super downvote" for posts they personally disagree with even if they arent wrong and dont violate any rules. The system is fundamentally broken compared to larger websites

Kloe_Rinz posted...

youve said that its a simple majority that causes a moderation to be upheld which isnt good enough because then if 49% of people disagree with the moderation its still upheld even though something is very obviously wrong with the decision. you're saying you dont know how many votes it takes? with the amount of mods on this site it cant be too many. you get one dispute and often you dont even know what rule your post has violated so you're going in blind and arent even allowed to ask a simple quest "why was this moderated". And then you have some mods who use the system as a "super downvote" for posts they personally disagree with even if they arent wrong and dont violate any rules. The system is fundamentally broken compared to larger websites

How many mods would it take disagreeing for a moderation to be overturned? I imagine >90% of moderations are voted 90/10 one way or another. Do you think the old system where basically 4 people decided your status (marker, 1st mod, 2nd mod, admin) was any better?
What larger websites do you go to with a better moderation system? How is Reddit's moderation system, where subreddit mods are practically omnipotent, any better?

GameFAQs requires that:

1. Someone marks you, which means smaller boards can get away with practically anything.
2. A mod, who didn't mark you, thinks you broke the rules AND your message should be removed.
3. The majority of OTHER mods agree.

Again, that's at least 3 layers of protection you need to fuck up before getting modded. Mistakes happen, I have some BS moderations directly approved by admin. But, even if the moderation is arbitrary it's at least a fair amount of posters who actually don't like what you posted and want you to stop.

let's gooo

Judge: You've been found guilty of theft, arson, kidnapping, aggravated assault, sexual harassment, and attempted murder.

Judge: You've been in my court ten times already. However, since you have a lot of karma, I have decided you will only spend 4 months in prison. Perhaps you'll learn your lesson this time...

(Actually if mods are judges, what would the admin be?)

Alucard188 posted...

You missed the gathering of peasants whose only goal is to hurl stones at the judge, officer, and the accused.

I sympathize because mods do get shit you don't deserve but you can't deny the system is atrocious

Umbreon posted...

Judge: You've been found guilty of theft, arson, kidnapping, aggravated assault, sexual harassment, and attempted murder.

Judge: You've been in my court ten times already. However, since you have a lot of karma, I have decided you will only spend 4 months in prison. Perhaps you'll learn your lesson this time...

(Actually if mods are judges, what would the admin be?)

In this case Admin would be the president who decides penalties and has final say on death penalty cases

Which is sadly Stull better than what we actually have

Alucard188 posted...

You missed the gathering of peasants whose only goal is to hurl stones at the judge, officer, and the accused.

Also, the town crier standing outside the courthouse yelling out verdicts as they occur

So if the criminal is old enough they don't get any punishment of actual consequence and instead walk out of the courthouse with a slightly sore wrist

Kakapo posted...

Also, the town crier standing outside the courthouse yelling out verdicts as they occur

Town clown usually. Same thing.

it's an improvement

YR when a post prevents you from sleeping

MR: Good, good

Alucard188 posted...

You missed the gathering of peasants whose only goal is to hurl stones at the judge, officer, and the accused.

It sure bodes well for the integrity of the website when a prominent moderator refers to users as peasants.

Thank goodness we have a system that is committed to a fair and speedy trial, no cruel or unusual punishment, where the accused can defend themselves, evidence is necessary, and you are innocent until proven guilty.

Cherish these rights and defend them.

EzeDoesIt posted...

It sure bodes well for the integrity of the website when a prominent moderator refers to users as peasants.

Sorry if the comparison of a mob of peasants stoning people to death was too much for you to handle.

Alucard188 posted...

Sorry if the comparison of a mob of peasants stoning people to death was too much for you to handle.

Your compatriots have moderated accounts out of existence for far, far less egregious comparisons.

EzeDoesIt posted...

Your compatriots have moderated accounts out of existence for far, far less egregious comparisons.

At the very least we should be happy they moderate harshly people who deny awful events such as genocide.

Alucard188 posted...

Sorry if the comparison of a mob of peasants stoning people to death was too much for you to handle.

wow did a mod really just compare users complaining on a website to acts of violence irl?

Skype posted...

At the very least we should be happy they moderate harshly people who deny awful events such as genocide.

Deflecting from a moderator apparently viewing users as peasants to be subjugated by judges and officers is embarrassing.

And here we are, still concern trolling about moderators in the year of our lord 2022.

ModLogic posted...

reminds me of that video of a woman crying in court about the court cop and the judge just ignoring it and telling her to shut up or go to jail

The one where she said the cop molested her?

Alucard188 posted...

You missed the gathering of peasants whose only goal is to hurl stones at the judge, officer, and the accused.

Hey! It's a sacred tradition.

It's not concern trolling if the moderator is gleefully instigating it

Theres no logic or reasoning behind the the moderation process. No explanation either, why isnt there a rational explanation involved?

And why do you get modded, then they mod a post from months ago, only to suspend you?

"Sardonic retort" are the words you're looking for. Not "gleefully instigating".

Alucard188 posted...

And here we are, still concern trolling about moderators in the year of our lord 2022.

Who is attempting to derail the discussion about moderator fallibility but you and your colleagues?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/9/AAIY7IAACsEf.jpg

ModLogic posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/9/AAIY7IAACsEf.jpg

As if any post from you has ever deserved a reply

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I mean you're focusing on that one thing you can't even prove and dodging everything else so what reason have you given anyone to trust you? Way too often mods falsely moderate posts and nobody can realistically do anything about it. Way too often mods just use the moderation system as a "super downvote" for posts they don't like and purposely misinterpret. What you've said is false in multiple ways so why should anyone believe you?

Wait I could have been offering the death penalty all those years?