In fairness, the underrated qualifier should go to. I think that if you are going to moderate a post, you should have a good reason.
If you want to see an odd "overrated" moderation, read my comment But of Course! in reply to the story Ban on Internet Access Tax Dies in Senate. 50% interesting + 20% informative + 20% overrated doesn't quite add up.
Also, the funny qualifier is still fucked. They won't give you any positive karma for it, but as soon as you get modded down, even if it is from a five to a four, you can end up with a worse karma rating. I've stated my disdain for the rules on being funny before, but it's getting damn annoying, so I figured that I'd show my disapproval again.
Well, what does CmdrTaco think about being funny? Here's a quote from the Slashdot FAQ under Comments and Moderation. "You have to be smart, not just a smart-ass." Well, first off, you don't seem to have a problem being a smart ass, CmdrTaco. But, don't you have to be smart to be a smart-ass? Just as you have to be stupid to be a stupid-ass? Being funny shouldn't be such a bad thing.
The overrated and funny qualifier problems aren't the only problems with the system. here's the biggest change that I want to see to the moderation system. How about the powers that be quit letting these damn moderators hide behind this veil of secrecy by showing who gives us what score? Personally, I would like to see if whoever has been giving me out overrated scores is just a single prick with an agenda or multiple people whom I still wouldn't think too much of. If I think the moderators fucked up, I would like to at least know who they are and maybe even tell them that they fucked up. It should come with the territory of being a moderator to be able to defend your choices.
Well, that's all I have to comment on for now. Thanks go out to mirko and his journal post on the same subject for reminding me to say something about the moderation problems. Let me know what you people think.