I think tagging your upvote/downvote with metadata describing WHY you voted that way is not complicated.
Upvote - important
Upvote - funny
Upvote - informative
Upvote - consensus
Downvote - spam
Downvote - rude
Downvote - inaccurate
Downvote - disagree
Randomly assigned metamoderation as civic duty is not too much to ask of readers and contributors.
I also think the complication should reside in the algorithm and not be handed to the userbase. If metamoderation algorithms can figure out which moderators I agree and disagree with, let me favor the data those moderators i prefer contribute to the system.
A well written algorithm will be able to figure out when a person is polluting the system with noise and trying to watch the world burn. Disagreeing with consensus moderation is different than being disruptive. That is a challenging and complicated prospect, but that complexity lies on the backend, not the user facing interface.
Sure, but commenters are going to ask questions like "who is moderating me" and "why am I allowed to moderate sometimes but not other times."
On Slashdot, the answers to these seemingly simple questions are quite complex, but generally understood and embraced by the audience. I'm not sure that would be the case on a site like the Guardian.
That said, you may be right that the benefits outweigh the confusion and that this could work fine at Guardian. (Although, even as a longtime Slashdot user, I have no idea what "upvote - consensus" means...)
Upvote - important
Upvote - funny
Upvote - informative
Upvote - consensus
Downvote - spam
Downvote - rude
Downvote - inaccurate
Downvote - disagree
Randomly assigned metamoderation as civic duty is not too much to ask of readers and contributors.
I also think the complication should reside in the algorithm and not be handed to the userbase. If metamoderation algorithms can figure out which moderators I agree and disagree with, let me favor the data those moderators i prefer contribute to the system.
A well written algorithm will be able to figure out when a person is polluting the system with noise and trying to watch the world burn. Disagreeing with consensus moderation is different than being disruptive. That is a challenging and complicated prospect, but that complexity lies on the backend, not the user facing interface.