Asklemmy

43942 readers

454 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

How would a credibility system work… (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Siathes@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just chilling and sharing a stream of thought..

So how would a credibility system work and be implemented. What I envision is something similar to the up votes..

You have a credibility score, it starts a 0 neutral. You post something People don’t vote on if they like, the votes are for “good faith”

Good faith is You posted according to rules and started a discussion You argued in good faith and can separate with opposing opinions You clarified a topic for someone If someone has a polar opinion to yours and is being down voted because people don’t understand the system Etc.

It is tied to the user not the post

Good, bad, indifferent…?

Perfect the system

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

I think we should take another look at Slashdot's moderation and meta-moderation system:

Users couldn't just vote on everything; "modpoints" (upvotes/downvotes, but also with a reason attached) were a limited resource.
Comments scores were bounded to [-1, 5] instead of being unbounded.
Most importantly, what wasn't limited was that users had the opportunity to "meta-moderate:" they would be shown a set of moderation actions and be asked to give a 👍 or 👎 based on whether they agreed with the modpoint usage or not.
Users would be awarded modpoints based on their karma (how their own comments had been modded by others) and their judgement (whether people agreed or not with their modpoint usage).

Admittedly the exact formula Slashdot used for awarding modpoints was secret to prevent people from gaming it, which doesn't exactly work for Lemmy, but the point is that I think the idea of using more than one kind of signal to determine reputation is a good one.