And should be done in less than 6 or 12 hours? Doesn’t this give to much power to one mod? Probably going to get my mod license revoked here. But it is worth saying. And I am not specifically noting NSQ even the communities I mod. I can go in and I am the deciding factor, isn’t that too much power for one person? What if they are on a power trip or something.?
I imagine it’s very hard to moderate effectively any other way. A moderation team should be on the same page, and believe that other moderators are acting in good faith. Generally, this means moderators take action justified by established rules and/or guidelines, and document their justification should review be required.
Requiring voting for every, or most actions is a monumental amount of time consuming administration work, as most moderators have other obligations, and live across time zones. Moderator action being required is, inherently, because an act in the community is deemed to be harmful to a community or it’s intended purpose. Swift action is especially important when the act is illegal, or dangerous (exploitation media, doxxing, etc).
A voting system is counterintuitive to the intent of moderation. Communities and forums, both physical and ethereal, are not democracies. Each is created with an intent, here in the ‘lemmyverse’ that intent is often to promote discussion. If I founded a crochet group, and the members decided to instead perform seances during meets, the group would no longer serve it’s purpose. Hierarchy of some kind developing is also unavoidable in any relationship; but a positive hierarchy is understood by those within it to be productive, and well intentioned.
Voting systems are not immune to power imbalances, especially when alternate accounts and moderator inactivity are present. Votes enforced on a software level may be manipulated, or held in a permanent limbo. Whereas unenforced votes don’t mean much other than polling opinion, which is already an option, and already relies on trust in the moderators. Members of a community should trust one another enough to feel empowered to bring up concerns.
TL:DR Nothing is perfect, but healthy communities are built on trust, and no level of enforcement changes that. In a healthy ecosystem, people are free to stop engaging where they do not have that trust, and are empowered to promote positive change. The fediverse is built on this principle, as netizens and communities alike must have trust in their admins, and that same trust applies to every step in the hierarchy. It is also practically impossible due to organisational constraints, or undue demand of volunteer moderators’ time.