| ▲ | guerrilla 6 hours ago |
| Yes. Subforums should elect mods democratically. |
|
| ▲ | dijit 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| sadly, a nice idea that is painfully naive with how computers are used in reality. One need only remember how easy it was to take over IRC channels with a few hundred bots to see the endgame of this rationale… it cannot be patched out, it’s inherent to the internet. That which would make a vote valid; can (and will) be gamed. |
|
| ▲ | johannes1234321 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As long as sub forums can be created easily, users may pick their sub forum and thus indirectly moderator. In this setup having users elect the moderator leads to cases where small groups create their special interest group and then some trolls challenge the moderator. Their may be some oversight on the large sub forum, but not all. |
| |
| ▲ | gzread 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Necessary for this is that subforums can't have unique names. If a bad mod can squat all the words like "computers", "programming", "coding", newcomers aren't going to know the best subforum is called "RealProgNoBadMod" | | |
| ▲ | johannes1234321 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, the "important" ones need some special attention. If "democracy" where anybody can create arbitrary amount of accounts is however questionable. The vast majority of sub forums however are more targeted and smaller to begin with. | | |
| |
| ▲ | leoedin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You see this in city-focused subreddits. But the reality is the name is power. New users type in their city and join the original one. The hostile mods suppress mention of the new one. It never manages to get critical mass. |
|
|
| ▲ | twic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Stack Overflow does this and it works far better than arbitrary tyrant style moderation. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Gud 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why?
Genuinely curious. I am a big proponent of (direct) democracy in general. |
| |
| ▲ | mavhc 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Internet is way behind on democracy. In general everyone likes democracy until they're in charge, then they realise they're the best person to be in charge and the idiots who vote don't have a clue, and should probably be banned if not beheaded for speaking out of turn. You'd have to weight votes by some kind of participation metric to solve the problem of very little authentication of the voters |
|
