this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy

11867 readers
4 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/5772572

The current state of moderation across various online communities, especially on platforms like Reddit, has been a topic of much debate and dissatisfaction. Users have voiced concerns over issues such as moderator rudeness, abuse, bias, and a failure to adhere to their own guidelines. Moreover, many communities suffer from a lack of active moderation, as moderators often disengage due to the overwhelming demands of what essentially amounts to an unpaid, full-time job. This has led to a reliance on automated moderation tools and restrictions on user actions, which can stifle community engagement and growth.

In light of these challenges, it's time to explore alternative models of community moderation that can distribute responsibilities more equitably among users, reduce moderator burnout, and improve overall community health. One promising approach is the implementation of a trust level system, similar to that used by Discourse. Such a system rewards users for positive contributions and active participation by gradually increasing their privileges and responsibilities within the community. This not only incentivizes constructive behavior but also allows for a more organic and scalable form of moderation.

Key features of a trust level system include:

  • Sandboxing New Users: Initially limiting the actions new users can take to prevent accidental harm to themselves or the community.
  • Gradual Privilege Escalation: Allowing users to earn more rights over time, such as the ability to post pictures, edit wikis, or moderate discussions, based on their contributions and behavior.
  • Federated Reputation: Considering the integration of federated reputation systems, where users can carry over their trust levels from one community to another, encouraging cross-community engagement and trust.

Implementing a trust level system could significantly alleviate the current strains on moderators and create a more welcoming and self-sustaining community environment. It encourages users to be more active and responsible members of their communities, knowing that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded. Moreover, it reduces the reliance on a small group of moderators, distributing moderation tasks across a wider base of engaged and trusted users.

For communities within the Fediverse, adopting a trust level system could mark a significant step forward in how we think about and manage online interactions. It offers a path toward more democratic and self-regulating communities, where moderation is not a burden shouldered by the few but a shared responsibility of the many.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of online community management, it's clear that innovative approaches like trust level systems could hold the key to creating more inclusive, respectful, and engaging spaces for everyone.

Related

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Lemmy is relatively small. Even the most active communities do not have many issues. It is well within the ability of a single admin to monitor mods, or really to handle all flags even on places like .world. I'm the lead mod of 3d printing on dot world. It is one of the larger communities here. Over moderation doesn't seem to be a problem to me. Indeed, as I laid out in 3d printing, I believe in invisible moderation. I play referee if one is needed, but it is not "my community." I take no ownership. I'm just the user that is willing to set myself aside and do whatever needs to be done.

We are back at a stage where we need more users as much as possible. That means putting as few impediments in their way as possible and encouraging as many as possible to participate regularly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How do you stop it just being a popularity contest?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You are probably thinking about StackExchange, I don't see anybody saying anything about popularity when talking about Discourse. It's a matter of doing it like Discourse and not like StackExchange.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The downvote button already gets used as a "I disagree" button. Distributed moderation gives more teeth to a "I disagree" button that isn't particularly helpful.

Practically speaking, go to the Technology community on LW. A lot of perfectly sane and rational takes get downvoted because a bunch of people simply disagree or it isn't on the right side of the fanboyism everyone's expected to have on some topic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think an appeal process to punish moderators abusing power would help with that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Seconded. I caught a BS removal on a certain comm and I just assumed the admins would have been OK with it. Would have appealed it if I had the chance and the admins probably would have taken my side. Right now there's way too much incentive for mods to abuse their power with little pushback. Sure you could make a thread about it on the instance's meta page but that would just spark drama and that's the last thing a good faith user wants to have to deal with.

A private "report community" option that goes straight to the admins (of yours and their instance) would be great step to break the chill that comes from speaking out against an abusive mod/team while also avoiding the drama that comes from callout threads.