Possible Moderation System

I'm running into some indecision on to what extent the moderator system should be anonymous and could use some input.


All mods and admins have a unique "Mod ID#". When admins moderate, they do so under their Mod ID#. Mods are forbidden to reveal who they are (i.e. their username) to the public or to eachother on penalty of termination. Admins are the exception to this as they inherently know who the mods are. Admins can issue "orders" to other mods (similar to the format of forum PMs). Mods write "actions" to "reports" much like "trouble tickets" seen in the tech support field.

The purpose of this system is to give off the surface impression that the site is "modless" although numerous "Mod ID#s" exist. Additionally, eliminating mod familiarity eliminates mod influence, promoting an unbiased work environment. Likewise, the mods don't know which Mod IDs the admins are.

In the possibilities mentioned below, only the following effects would be visible to the reporting user in an anonymous mod system:

Mod 34 writes an action to Report 123.
Mod 25 writes an action to Report 123.

However, this is what might of happened behind the scenes:

Mod 34 writes an action to Report 123.
Admin Bob quietly revokes Mod 34's moderator powers for violating Mod ToS in Report 123.
Admin Bob is also known as Mod 25.
Mod 25 writes an action to Report 123.

Here's another possibility:

Mod 34 writes an action to Report 123.
Mod 8 quietly reports Mod 34 for violating the Mod ToS in Report 123.
Mod 34 is also known as Admin Bob.
Admin Bob "fires" Mod 34 and hires a new Mod 25
Admin Bob secretly assumes the role of Mod 25.
Mod 25 writes an action to Report 123.

Again, another possibility:

Mod 34 writes an action to Report 123.
Mod 8 quietly reports Mod 34 for violating the Mod ToS in Report 123.
"The admins" quietly revoke Mod 34's moderator powers.
"The admins" order Mod 25 to take jurisdiction of Report 123.
Mod 25 writes an action to Report 123.

As you can see, there's a great amount of ambiguity for mod actions from the perspective of the public. Even if there was a leak, this ambiguity makes it near impossible for people to believe what's leaked. This results in zero incentive for mods to "tattle" on what they believe was a wrong-doing in the system.

Here's how the above possibility might of played out in a named moderator system.

Mod Phil writes an action to Report 123.
Mod Shirley quietly reports Mod Phil for violating Mod ToS.
Admin Bob revokes Mod Phil's moderator powers.
Mod Phil is no longer listed in the publicly-available mod list.
Mod Jack is friends with Mod Phil.
Mod Jack sees that Mod Phil has been demoted.
Mod Jack argues against Mod Phil's demotion.
Admin Bob attempts to reason with Mod Jack.
Mod Jack resigns in protest.

The above example shows there is great potential for drama in a named moderator system. In an anonymous moderator system though, no one knows who any of the other mods are, so they can't become legitimately upset over another mod being demoted. Additionally, if an admin screws up in a named moderator system, everyone on staff knows about it and the event has the potential to destabilize the staff. In an anonymous mod system though, if an admin screws up they can just "fire themselves" and hire a new mod to assume the role of.

The problem is that this might be overkill. Yes, it would certainly reduce potential for bias and drama, but I'm worried that making the moderation system too impersonal is a bad thing.

Here's an idea: To help curtail moderator bias, moderators can't quality rate a review if they have that game in their library. Additionally, quality rating is done randomly and anonymously. (that is, the mod doesn't know who wrote the review)