What should the limits be on sub moderators?

submitted by magnora7 from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What if therse is a body/committee of a bunch of users and mods of multiple subs, put together without bias and have them act as jury towards removing posts/comments? We could change the members of this body periodically so that the power would not stay with one group that could be trying to take over.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Voat had something like this, called ProtectVoat. What ended up happening is those who wanted to take over the site, took over ProtectVoat, and then used it to ban everyone who didn't agree with them. It accelerated the decline of voat. I'm afraid of creating points of centralized power for this reason.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The less hierarchy the better.

[–]roc 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think hierarchy will always appear, so preferably organised and more democratic than to have outside groups organise to take power.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that it's almost inevitable. But it doesn't have to go high. Especially if we can all self moderate each other. And if we can figure out ways to make it harder to corrupt that would be great. A transparent forum for conflicts for example.

Maybe we can start pitching ideas around about how this organization my be done. Starting now would be better than waiting until there was a crisis to implement something ad hoc. The more we hash it out the more we can improve on ideas.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You're right. Increasing heirarchy will just shift the blame from one party to another more than fixing the problems. We should be able to work it out instead of having someone to look at or expect to fix things. However, if we do need to create some kind of collective activity, we could have something like a jury where users can volunteer to be a temporary mod and they will review the actual mods' actions and determine whether or not it should be done. We could also have a live debate from two sides, one supporting each action. Through logic and reasonable debate, with a conclusion that everyone accepts, we could have the final actions executed. Pretty much like a court but open to everyone and a hint of democracy. It's probably not practical on the internet for us tbh

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'd like to see a /s/SaidItConflicts be created where folks can openly see the issues play out. Maybe this open forum would succeed or fail for any number of expected or unforseen reasons, but it's worth a try, IMHO.

Whether you think it's a kangaroo court or a noble senate floor to air grievances, I don't see why it shouldn't be tried out.

Another benefit is that all those issues would be collected in one place, easy to find. And then folks can refer to other "cases" for precedent.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is worth trying yes. We need to find a way to create an unbiased and reasonable conclusion for as many conflicts as possible. We should not let a reasonable opinion get drowned in silly and meaning less counter comments. What if we find a way to implement the "debate pyramid" to measure a comment's value? We could create button like upvote but with the options from the pyramid and we can select the appropriate one for said comment. However, the problem arises when people use fake accounts or use more accounts to vote more for their own/wrong comments. Another option is, when you make a comment/counter in an argument/debate, you have to select which stage of the pyramid your comment belongs to. This will help identify comments' values somewhat easily.

Edit: spelling

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm all for letting people present, discuss, and debate their ideas about conflicts in the /s/SaidItConflicts where they need resolutions.

After all is said and done, or maybe before that, the tribunal will decide. The tribunal would be magnora7, d3rr, and public opinion. Being a voting forum anyone who cares to weigh in on the drama can cast their vote when asked. I suspect it's unlikely that M7D3 would disagree on too much, and I also don't expect the public opinion to ever be tied on two or more viewpoint options. I hate the tyranny of the mob and democracy sometimes but this isn't that exactly and should likely be more about rationality, reason, and the pyramid. All the sock puppets in the world can't defeat the pyramid.

If SaidIt gets too big there might need to be limits on who can debate, and while some people will thrive on the circle jerk of endless drama, we don't want to consume all of M7D3's time. Who know's, maybe they will have to invent a form and make it like real city hall.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the categorization of comments based on the pyramid is practical. There could be votes just like the insightful/funny. The op of comment and other users can select the button which represents the correct stage in the pyramid. A user should be allowed to select only one option from the list of stages, whichever is accurate/closest. This way, we can easily seperate comments from low quality to relevant ones.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds over complicated but maybe if SaidIt numbers reach Reddit numbers we might need something like this.