/kbin meta

4 readers

1 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago

Moderate by lottery? (kbin.social)

submitted 1 year ago by Sam_uk@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

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

[–] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think that first, things need to settle down. We don't have yet moderating tools. And the website is still under construction.

A lottery is not a great idea because just picking up people randomly won't work, you need to know of the technical aspect of things work. And also some people may join with not good intent at all. So it could have catastrophic results.

I guess it will be pretty simple to come up with mod guiding rules, and if anyone has an issue with moderation you can simply contact the instance admin and settle things.

but as for right now we are still in the early stage of this website, so patience.

edit: just though about the comparison with jury duty, I guess you are talking about the USA in this example. a lot of countries doesn't have a jury of peer, and they are good reason for that.

[–] Sam_uk@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 points 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.