Lack of interest Option to Force a minimum of 2 moderators to review a queued thread, or post, before rejecting.

[CivilWarTalk]

One problem I've had on my forum, is that when we use the thread and post queue, it only takes one moderator to approve or reject a listing.

At first moderators were happy to approve and reject threads as needed,

However, as members reported that they felt some rejected posts were unfairly rejected, some of our moderators agreed to first review the posts, and have a second moderator agree to reject a post before doing so, so that there was transparency about the rejection reason, as well as mutual agreement about the violation that caused the rejection. However, there are no tools to make this happen, and when you've got dozens of queued posts to deal with....

Well, we ended up with some mods not wanting to deal with queued posts, and other mods that have a "bad reputation" because they always make the hard choice to make the rejection.

After a while, I had a hard time getting posts rejected, they would just be approved by mods because that was easier, and if the post was reported, then we would deal with it, and that's just not how I wanted my forum to run.

It would be really great if Xenforo would alert, hold, and show for other moderators some kind of marker or flag saying that a Moderator has marked a queued thread or post for rejection, and that a second moderator would then be able to come along and either agree and confirm the rejection, or disagree, and approve the thread or post. Finally, XF should keep a simple easy to access log of any rejections from the queue.

To be clear, I still think thread and post approvals can be done by a single moderator without need for a review by a second mod.

Perhaps the worst issue, for me, is that there is no simple rejection log from the queue, The post or thread is just deleted like any other post, and I can't just click a link to see what posts or threads were rejected recently, say in the last 24 hours.... I have no link to deleted content, no record of who flagged the content, or who made the deletion to reject, or when, without doing deep research in the moderation log.

 

[beerForo]

The first moderator to see could report it to open the private discussion on whether to approve or reject. This would be the normal course of action for committee ruling on thread/post removal anyway. So in essence, a system is in place.

 

[Mendalla]

I don't use post moderation (yet, it's coming for some new forums I am planning post-2.2) but I agree with @beerForo. For other mod action questions, we are doing okay just taking it "backstage" (private moderator forum) or conversation to discuss. Even with something like this in place, I really don't have enough mods to bother (four, of which three are actually active) so wouldn't use it.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

The first moderator to see could report it to open the private discussion on whether to approve or reject. This would be the normal course of action for committee ruling on thread/post removal anyway. So in essence, a system is in place.

Using that, and we tried that, the first mod would report it, and post would sit in queue. Then another mod would skip reports and go straight to the queue, and would report it. Then another one. Eventually a mod approve the thread, and later on review, we all realized it should have never been approved, if it had been flagged as under review, it would have been scrutinized, or rejected quickly.

Reports aren't connected to the queue, it needs to be a queue based system.

 

[beerForo]

Then train your moderators and give them specific direction/guidelines, let any moderator do it (or specific moderators), and ignore bellyaching from members.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

Training and trust only go so far, besides, I'm not asking for a change for every forum like yours, I asked for an option. Some forums like mine need and want a different system. We discussed the options, and this is what we want as a community, and what I want as the forum owner.

 

[Ozzy47]

I don’t see anything like this being added anytime soon. So if you need it for your site, a custom addon would be the way to go.

 

[beerForo]

Training and trust only go so far, besides, I'm not asking for a change for every forum like yours, I asked for an option. Some forums like mine need and want a different system. We discussed the options, and this is what we want as a community, and what I want as the forum owner.

When 2.2 is released you might be able to use a Suggestion forum. So let's say the permissions are so users only see their own (or moderation is on). They post and mods upvote or downvote, and then it is moved to the appropriate forum (approved) or removed. If you use a Suggestion node + Moderation you might be able to have mods vote, while still in moderation? Unsure, but maybe you can test this out. I am just brainstorming here.

 

[beerForo]

You do have an edge case though so I would also suggest you request what you need, like what @Ozzy47 said.

 

[BobHarbison]

Create a forum in your moderator only forum that says "Reject? Second opinion needed".
When Mod 1 reviews a thread and wants a second look, he moves it there. Others know to look there and either reject or possibly move it to forum #2 which is something like "Discussion/Review Needed" for when it's a split vote.