Raindance's Journal: Meta-meta-moderation

I spent an hour or so (weird connection due to Comcast, so I'm not sure how meaningful 'an hour or so' is) moderating- my first mod points. Exciting.

This made me think about those posters who, in their .sigs, state that they will meta-moderate all downmods as unfair, to promote upmods. This is frustrating.

Rant:
I would meta-meta-moderate those who catagorically meta-moderate all negative mods down. Doing so
  1. Is an abuse of the system (catagorically penalizing certain users) through a loophole (no infinite-regress moderation).
  2. Hurts the success (S/N ratio) of the moderation system.

Yes, sometimes moderators are swayed by grandstanding, keywords, rehashing, or spurious 'facts' the poster made up. These posts are noise- noise much more harmful to the S/N ratio than AC trolls- and should be dealt with through peer moderation. As was intended.
End Rant.

Random Thoughts:
That said, I wish we of the community could also rate .sigs- just today, I saw someone post with

'I am a citizen, not a consumer.' and
'I am a human being, not a revenue source.'

Very cool.

I also wish we could footnote things; a completely flat mode of presentation, as slashdot-text is, is limiting to certain aspects of communication. Yes, we can probably do the same things in a flat-text communication than a footnotecapable-text, and it might even promote better writing style through the challenge (see Apple's rationale for one-button mice) but I'd still like to have it available.
End Random Thoughts.

---------- UPDATE ----------

After having it pointed out to me, I've really noticed that many people rate down comments as 'overrated' if they don't like the comment but don't want to get caught by M2. Evidentally 'Overrated' can't be M2'd. Sneaky and low; I pledge not to mod things as overrated until this gaping hole in the mod system is fixed.

Please fix it, eds.