Moderation on a Different Level

 Let's start off by making it clear that every place has someone in charge. Regardless of how high the branch overall goes. Some places have higher-ups than its individual spots. Discord, for instance, has the specific owner of said server(the Admin), and its Moderation with varying levels as they see fit. And then there's people higher up than them(who can vary on how many levels).

However, when it comes to websites, a big important part is that while it's important to get community feedback, one cannot let the community outright control said site over the Moderation and Administration. While it's still respectable to allow feedback, there is a point when they create a lot of trouble. This can include a lot of things;

• Too much popcorning. When it comes to any Open Appeal Thread for any kind of Ban/Suspension system, it's not the community's job to decide if an apology is "good enough" or any kind of thing. That's a bad thing, because they are not qualified to discuss things properly. They were not trained, chosen, or given any kind of rules and don't have all the details either. This doesn't mean zero feedback is bad. If a Moderator does make an error, it's actually a good thing to point it out. But that's where it really ends.
• It's also important to note when making public reports that it's not the community's job to ever decide whether a person should be punished or whatnot. They are not a good judge of the situation. This is also why multiple times many Moderators won't weigh in(directly, outside of being asked) due to potential personal bias in a situation. This is part of the normal rules most of the time(though it is true sometimes this isn't a rule as fast as it should be).
• Ultimately, transparency can also lead to problems. It's not a good thing necessarily, but can be helpful. As long as it doesn't lead to popcorning/people who are not in charge trying to determine who should be allowed on the site or not.
• The community deciding the rules of how a Moderator operates. They don't actually understand exactly what the site needs to flow right either. It's completely understandable to ask for their experiences to help build a better ruleset, but the only people who should be making said rules are the Administration and the Moderation(the latter is less important to it).
• A big thing is that in order for any kind of authority to have meaning, it means that they cannot constantly be challenged to such a severe degree that it allows for people to be harsh and rude in their responses. This also means that in order to fix things, people need to go through private channels with proper reports. Trust is important, but if you cannot be bothered to report problems, then nothing ever gets solved. Evidence is required for reports, not personal feelings.
• Accountability is ultimately important too. However, this goes more ways than people like to admit. The Moderation has to be held accountable, hence why them reversing a decision based upon bad information is absolutely necessary to remaining trustworthy. Or generally fixing their mistakes. But there's one thing people really need to understand too.
• General users who weigh in on a situation or are involved are just as accountable. As I said before, you aren't some hero either. Reporting a bad person is important. But if you act like an asshole to said person, you do not deserve to magically get off the hook cause of some good deed. That's not how it works. If you choose to act like a bad person, you fall under the same issue; acting like a bad person is against the rules. I mean, it's common sense, right?
• To further add to that point, and something also heavily worth mentioning; there is no "worse" person in these situations. You're going to meet people you don't like or they do things that are against the rules. Obviously you only report the latter(reporting the former is a good way to lose your ability to report, as you're abusing it to get rid of people you dislike). But another thing that comes in is when people think baiting a bad person to get rid of them is a good idea. No, it isn't. You're trolling bad people. Stop being a dick and engage in good faith or just report them if you can't respond reasonable. By being a dick, you're making the job harder for everyone, as it ultimately leads to you breaking the rules while trying to pretend to be a hero who got rid of someone. This isn't a war. It's a site.
• Too much bias. Bias is understandable. Issues are understandable that come up. But once again, reporting them has more merit than expressing them in public. The fact any place has an open appeals thread that is visible is already a very strange case. That also means that's there to help build lessons on how to act and how not to act.
• No matter how you go about it, your experiences will cloud your judgment about a situation. When it comes to seeing an appeal, you aren't equipped to properly look at the full details. An important thing to remember is that if a key detail is missed by a Moderator. this is where the community is actually fruitful. If they make a mistake, any major decision has to be reversed(I.E. a full removal of the user) because it's based upon a false situation. Everybody makes mistakes. There is no excuse under any condition that they should ignore said mistake. This is highly important because it means they're actually doing their job correctly.
• By refusing to fix a mistake, you lose far more trust than any other situation. Yes, the reversal will be unpopular in many cases. But no matter what, that has to stand. You cannot trust them to actually change or realize an error if they ignore their errors for the sake of "doling out justice". A Moderation that actually instills trust by being accountable for their mistakes is far more important than justice in itself.
• Speaking of, the need for justice. It relates partially to bias, but too many only care about punishment and less about fixing an actual issue or even making a person better. This is exactly why the community doesn't work well for judging things. Mob mentality plays a near identical role, as they'll try to get rid of things based purely on their consensus, even when at no point were they allowed to participate in this.
• That's also key in remembering. The community even being allowed to weigh in on various appeals at all is a privilege, not a right. This is not a common thing and most places see it as a terrible way to run a site. Most things are kept private because the popcorning is beyond useless in dealing with any situation. In addition, this also means people get rude and unruly about other users, even ones who are obviously bad people. They actually think it's a new acceptable target for them to treat poorly.
• The basic point is, even a bad user is still a user. It is hard required to follow the rules when talking to or about said user, which includes basic common courtesy. Throwing around accusations and trying to push your weight into it is not as helpful as you think it is. You are not a hero.
• Something also minor. A post being removed isn't the Moderation "lashing out". You should know better than that. A post being removed is that it violates the rules. Intentionally combating them in order to whine is frankly ridiculous and you should actually be respecting their final ruling. The whole "my way or the highway" is a thing here, but more importantly, egging them on is not a smart move. You are intentionally trolling them because you dislike it. Simply saying displeasure may be fine(depending the circumstances), but don't intentionally whine in comparison. Again, you are not a hero.
• Note that places have different ways of handling posts or whatnot. This can be removal, hiding them outright with some kind of "warning message", or a public warning put on said message without certain things removed(if at all). Key thing is that by violating the rules, you aren't helping anyone. You may think that it's some peaceful protect, but it's not. Websites are not what you think they are. They're just a place that you have the privilege of being a part of, choosing to follow their rules.
• That's not saying you shouldn't be allowed to contest certain ones ever, but it does mean that there comes a time when a foot will be put down about it. Ignoring this to whine more about the situation only hurts your case. You are not required to like it. But combating it is ultimately doing it at your own peril. Why are users removed from a site for constantly combating it? It's because at the end of the day, the decision is final. There's nothing more to discuss. Just let it go or leave. You lost the argument, plain and simple. That's the end of it. Is it fair? Not necessarily, but it's not your site. It's theirs. They make the rules. There's nothing to "rally" for by that point. And yes, it gets redundant to drive home on how pointless these efforts can be. You don't win every battle, but refusing to stop is not a legitimately good look for your point. Changes, no matter how bad you may think they are, do happen and are not reversible. To put it simply; he's dead, Dave.
• Lastly, mob mentality is something I spoke on earlier. It's basically nothing more than an actual way to bully people you don't like. You are not justified no matter what. There is no excuse for it. It's why, generally, sites do not consider this a legitimate tactic and will start removing posts that violates the rules. You are not some special hero for trying to get rid of a bad person by teaming up with others.
• If you want to help, actually report stuff accurately. And respect that your opinion only has so much merit in this situation. Besides that, your opinion is also not as important in dealing with this. What they want are facts as well. These are what helps. Leave your bias at the door. 
• This isn't to say that people don't ultimately deal with lots of pain and trouble dealing with a bad person. This sucks to deal with. However, this is exactly why you cannot be trusted to deal with a user. Your facts are important because they help the Moderation deal with a problematic user based upon the rules, not bias or feelings. There's a difference between ignoring that people are hurt and actually allowing them to act out on their own.
• Let's also make it very clear that this doesn't downplay any horrible experiences they dealt with. It's not right either. But it's also not right to allow a clouded judgment to determine how to deal with a user. This only creates more trouble.
• Hence, this is why a biased Moderator cannot be involved with something that involves them directly when it comes to determining any kind of action. In fact, this is exactly the same situation that users deal with when reporting a bad member they dealt with. Neither case is fit to legitimately judge.

One last thing to end with is that a bad Moderation can absolutely exist. But it's not transparency that will help. It's that you should be reporting them properly based upon the rules of the site. As noted above, sites can get very unruly when the public is too involved. I've seen many kinds of mob mentality(which frankly is too nice of a word of how people act, but any other is also illogical to use) that basically prove time and time again allowing the community to have that much power is a godawful idea. (It's also important to note that trust is a crapshoot without transparency and accountability. On the other hand, it's not possible to fix everything without it).