So this is a half formed idea that might be horrible, I thought I’d throw it out there for critique.

  • We have a problem on Kbin.social and probably other instances of under staffed moderation & admin teams.
  • Some large magazines have a single moderator
  • This will soon lead to *bad-shit appearing here
  • We will likely get de-federated at some point

A random selection of peers is good enough for juries. So how about we apply it here?

Every ~100th new user is made a site wide Admin (cannot delete only unpublish content, it remains visible in the backend to other mods)

Every ~100th new Magazine subscriber is similarly made a mod of that space.

A few would go powertripping, many would be inactive, but I think it might build the mod/admin team in a reasonable way.

We have to build the processes for powertripping/inactive admins anyway, so in a sense it’s not extra work.

You’d build in some randomness, so the system was harder to game, it wouldn’t literally be the 100th person. It might be the 80th, or 110th, but averaging out at ~100

  • Sam_uk@kbin.socialOP
    0·
    1 year ago

    Any of this would presuppose the existence of a modlog/ audit system. You wouldn’t grant any delete permissions using this system & changes could always be reverted by those higher up the food chain.

    I’m interested to explore the assumption that the correct people to control discourse and have some censorship power are those that seek to control discourse and have censorship power.

    • aroom@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      I don’t thing that your assumption is correct. One can open a magazine without the envy to control discourse and have censorship power.

      So for me your thesis is therefor already flawed.

      That being said I think that the lottery system is very interesting. I know some politic and apolitical groups who use it, and the ideal is appealing. I’m also very curious about how effective it is in reality. It may be counterintuitively worst than most classic systems of representation. (I personally don’t think that it’s a good system for justice.)

      But as for right now, it’s too early to try to implement such a things, in my opinion. But I welcome the conversation and I’m thankful that you started it.