I would love to see you implement a user base no confidence mod removal tool that would be independent of your intervention. That way the active members in a sub can effectively vote in and out mods. Barring that if a mod does not conform to site policy (is there a violation here?) then they should get an auto-boot. I would also like to have the option of content transfer if I start a new sub. The v/chicago incident that also happened at the same time is something else to look at.
I've been thinking a lot over the last 48h or so about the meta-moderation model that Slashdot employs. I wonder if it would be possible to pick 50-100 'users in good standing' (whatever that happens to mean) every 24h or so and just ask them to anonymously give a 1-10 rating on a mod's performance. In theory, as long as you cast the net wide enough, you'll dial out the opinion of people trying to game the system and get the opinion of Voat as a whole.
If nothing else, I think it'd be a useful metric for starting to answer the question 'is this mod doing a good job'?
I dont think we need to do it every month. I was thinking along the lines of a parliamentary system, where there are terms, but a no confidence vote could be conducted before the term is complete. Voting privelege tied to a minimum ccp + scp in the sub. Working out the ability to game the system may be a challenge, but without an automated system, the load on the admins would be to much.
view the rest of the comments →
7553761? ago
I would love to see you implement a user base no confidence mod removal tool that would be independent of your intervention. That way the active members in a sub can effectively vote in and out mods. Barring that if a mod does not conform to site policy (is there a violation here?) then they should get an auto-boot. I would also like to have the option of content transfer if I start a new sub. The v/chicago incident that also happened at the same time is something else to look at.
7556581? ago
I've been thinking a lot over the last 48h or so about the meta-moderation model that Slashdot employs. I wonder if it would be possible to pick 50-100 'users in good standing' (whatever that happens to mean) every 24h or so and just ask them to anonymously give a 1-10 rating on a mod's performance. In theory, as long as you cast the net wide enough, you'll dial out the opinion of people trying to game the system and get the opinion of Voat as a whole.
If nothing else, I think it'd be a useful metric for starting to answer the question 'is this mod doing a good job'?
7558002? ago
I dont think we need to do it every month. I was thinking along the lines of a parliamentary system, where there are terms, but a no confidence vote could be conducted before the term is complete. Voting privelege tied to a minimum ccp + scp in the sub. Working out the ability to game the system may be a challenge, but without an automated system, the load on the admins would be to much.