[POLICY] How do you want to handle appointing moderators?

Submitted by ziq in meta (edited )

Emma had the idea of there needing to be moderator consensus to add or remove moderators. After a demod/mod request is registered with the system, each mod would vote - either 50% + 1 or 2/3 majority, depending on the size of the mod list.

This would be a lot better than reddit's hierarchical structure - where the mods that were added first can remove anyone under them without accountability.

Another idea being floated is to have a certain percentage of mods (maybe 40%) as the 'senior mods' and the rest would have less power. The senior mods could be defined by time since they were appointed, contributor activity, moderator activity, or something else. They would be able to add mods and remove mods, while the junior mods wouldn't have those permissions.

This second idea isn't as horizontal as the previous idea, but it's still a lot closer to democratic than reddit.

We could also do it the way r/metanarchism does it, with users that have a 3+ month posting history on the particular board getting to vote in mod elections. Except only one vote per IP address would be counted so people can't hijack the vote with sock puppets.

Any other ideas? Let us know.


This idea will also be implemented unless there are any objections. Inactive mods will be automatically removed from their subs.


You must log in or register to comment.


mofongo wrote

I like the first one.


Enkara wrote

Agreed, option 1 is nice.

Option 3 could still be gamed by anyone with VPN, or access to multiple IPs (I have access to 8 IPs), or if the site ends up having IPv6 support (everyone has very many IPs)


mofongo wrote

Why is the title green?


emma wrote (edited )



鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS


tanattyn wrote

I am really, really side-eyeing the American left/@ lately, but, I guess ...

  1. The system needs a way to remove far-right entryist mods without majority vote. Cause otherwise a trans woman did all this work just to make a better-looking Stormfront and/or a manarchists/brocialist site. If it's gonna be a democracy then I'd suggest it be a single-party left democracy that defends itself with a vengeance. Reddit is that for the right, as we've discovered.

  2. Mods that fail to remove comments that commit minor offenses, even if the mod is notified of the offensive comment by users; or if the mod fails to suspend or ban reactionaries, or open right-wing users, should be warned, then removed.

  3. Mods that are suspected of conspiracy to destroy raddit should be questioned ASAP, and removed if the lack of evidence or counter-evidence is not convincing of their loyalty to "the party".

  4. There should be a way for mods to propose to emma additional categories of users that the mods consider so destructive to raddit structure that they are effectively an enemy of the left/@, and can be suspended or banned on sight. Capitalism is hella creative about ways to destroy the left.

  5. Mods should be warned, and then suspended or banned if they suppress a user's criticism of the mod structure because it is not close enough to full-communism/anarchism for a user's comfort. In other words, free speech for opinions in line with emma+mod structure or to the left of it, should be as allowed as right-wing speech is suppressed. Although, IMO, if there is no safe way to shift things closer to full-communism/anarchy, respectful silence might be the best response.

  6. Mods should be 50-60+% minorities when possible, like the Cuban parliament with 1/2 women and/or 1/4 Black folks but taken further. Proven impersonation of a minority should result in a unilateral ban from up top, with the evidence and expulsion process made transparent. However, assuming emma is not a member of literally every oppressed demographic, she must listen to mod or user appeals to a falsely-grounded ban or suspension of this type, or entire sections of the left will be alienated from democratic control. This was a major flaw in the Castro regime that had to be corrected over decades.

  7. The mods need to be unilaterally warned, and then suspended or banned if they engage in any behavior that is unanimously, left-wide unacceptable like oppressive slurs, sexual harassment from any patriarchal-superior class to a patriarchal-inferior class (a man on a woman, a straight male on a queer male, etc), suppressing demographic-minority dissent, etc; they should be held to a higher standard than users, like politicians superficially are. The justification for and process of banning should be laid out for the mods for sake of transparency.

  8. I agree with the 3+ month rule. It doesn't halt stealth entryism but it will kill the cheap-quick-thrill troll type of entryist.

  9. If pandemonium breaks loose, I support emma if she decides to hard-purge the mods of stealth entryists and other elements that are disrupting the system from being as democratic/anarchic as it can be, while preventing a takeover by parties that exploit security gaps in democratic structure.

  10. There needs to be a skeleton backup site made in case of a hack of Raddit that mods or everyone can use for meta discussion while the coup is defeated and the mess cleaned up, so to speak. If there is so much effort to destroy raddit that the enemy has infiltrated to the point that this measure is ineffective, it's time to start over elsewhere. Another option is to keep in touch on some anonymous, more neutral social medium like YouTube channels held by several Raddit users. If YouTube is actively destroying left networking efforts at that point, then the American bourgeoisie have chosen to rally behind fascism and every one of us in the US needs to seriously consider IRL underground resistance networks or fleeing the country if we're minorities and can manage to flee, lol.


Xesau wrote

I would go with the first option.

Letting the user base vote could potentionally make installing mods very dificult when TD bridgading makes its way here.


lenin_1917 wrote

Give the workers and commenters the means to consensually remove counterrevolutionary and ineffective admins/mods - also try to provide liberties for members of raddits to democratically moderate themselves. Great suggestions, though.


ziq wrote

Your first point is covered by the ToS in the wiki. You can file complaints about mods in f/meta and they'll be demodded if the complaint checks out.

try to provide liberties for members of raddits to democratically moderate themselves.

Yeah, each community should be able to make its own rules and policies and manage itself, I agree.


ziq wrote

Some traction is being made with option 1 - emma has moved it up on her to do list. If there are any concerns or ideas for improvements, please let them be known.