[–] 1234567890 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
The 100CP is a good method. Potentially open to abuse in that 100+ dedicated foreigners could create accounts, circlevote themselves up and then oust the current mods.
To deal with that, I'd suggest not automating the actual replacement of the mods. The referendum should be confirmed by a real person, preferably an admin.
[–] nearly-evil ago
Do you think making it 500 or 100 would be better? Or perhaps bust be an account that shared content in that sub over a period of time?
[–] Dick-Tracy ago
Rather than a fixed number, it needs to be a floating number linked to some sub-specific index; it could be aimed to target the top N% of subscribers by post count in that sub or something like that.
Fixed numbers don't scale ;)
[–] 1234567890 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The actual criteria isn't all that important, as it's just a matter of deciding the best way of determining involvement in a sub. It can be dealt with later, by some smart people looking over tables and graphs of user data; the more pressing issue is whether or not we want users to be able to dethrone mods.
If I had to make a suggestion, it'd be membership for a certain period of time and a certain amount of CP, ideally derived from a formula taking into account the sub in question, perhaps using the median or mean CP or average subscription time for the sub. You could weight the votes differently depending on how much CP they have or how long they've been in the sub, or limit voting to the top X users.
Another concern that would have to be dealt with is a method to prevent newly-formed subs from being stolen immediately. This could be a grace period, additional weighting given to the current admins or a required percentage that varies according to the number of users, with a very high requirement at the beginning. Again, smart people with graphs can figure this out.
I'm no statistician. I can't say which would be best. Perhaps a variety of options could be present, to be set by the mod at the start? They would be presets, so the creator couldn't set requirements to be absurd.
[–] banal9 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Three flaws.
First, it's not hard to get a hundred points in any sub - not even counting "circlevoting". It's common to get that much off of one comment in Reddit. So you need to find a better formula for that threshold - one that takes more than just comment points; such as sub size, up/down vote ratio, etc.
Second, it incentivizes abusive mods to silence/ban their critics. Ban the person, no referendum against the mod - or at least one less voter.
Finally, removing bad moderators is fine, but how do you replace them? Ultimately, mods need to work well with other mods in order to be a good mod team. If there are toxic moderators in a team, it's probably because they're mostly OK with that behavior; removing a bad mod doesn't fix that. The other mods will just find someone else whose view aligns with theirs, and it'll be a neverending drama of witchhunting mods.
You need to replace the team, and change the sub rules. But if you're going to change the team and the rules, why not just start your own sub?
[–] cthulhuandyou 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
We definitely need something to help ensure that the crap from Reddit doesn't carry over here. I like this idea, especially if it's kept to CC in that particular sub rather than just CC overall to make sure that the user is actually involved in the community.
[–] alphadelta ago
I think that's a great idea, maybe more than 100 though. Starting to sound like a real democracy..
I think two things are clear with all these threads lately: Moderating needs to be transparent, and the masses need some sort of overarching power that can be activated to oust mods who display unfair censorship, consider themselves above the 'law', or otherwise threaten the environment here.
It's just like the real world... Reddit has been sold out and taken over, like our governments have. Let's keep the moderators working for the subs & the people here on Voat.
[–] gatordontplaythatsht 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is a great idea. The trick to keeping the site as balanced as possible is going to be crating systems that peoplecan't take advantage of.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
[–] goodboy [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Anything SRS can do to manipulate the site normal voaters can do back. Unlike reddit, voaters don't have an infinite number of votes per day. There must be checks and balances on power especially default subs moderators.
[–] the_federalist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I have to agree with you on this. I think the referendum approach would be abused. Limiting how many subs a person can mod is good and if a user has that kind of history with the site s/he should be able to create a competing sub without any problems.