Comment by inamorty
3 years ago
Perhaps meta-moderation would work in this scenario? Randomly assign previous moderation choices (anonymizing the moderator) for users to rank. This could to identify moderators that are out of line. It could also lead to echo chambers though.
If meta-moderation powers were assigned randomly and uniformly, this could be gamed by just spam-creating tons of accounts. Any system that accepts user input needs to have a robust answer to the question "What if a significant percentage of my users are actually bots under control of a single person?"
You could disincentivize them by having access to the metamoderation queue behind the subscription. Thus it's $2/mo/user account.
I wonder how much would a government intelligence or defense department who controls millions of bot accounts be willing to pay per month in order to have even a small percentage of power over who gets to mod (for example) r/ukraine?
2 replies →
I do like /. meta-moderation, but I also feel that the ones contributing the most, interacting the most (via votes/comments) should have a vote to who they want their moderators to be on a regular basis.
Man: We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Man: But all the decisions of that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Arthur: (very angry) Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!