[–] CIV_Quickcash 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Squat ourselves? I'll be honest, it's what I'm doing, though I plan on taking a hands off approach and handing over my verses to mods better suited for the position as this site grows. I just want to make sure someone with less than honest intentions starts taking up inevitably popular verses (/v/Holocaust, for an example of prevention, /v/Judaism for a demonstration of what would happen elsewise).
[–] Atko 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I guess we could always put things to a vote. After all, democracy is the governing principle of this site, so if a mod goes rogue - a vote could be put into place to downmote the mod. I would love to hear your ideas how this could be solved. I see people are currently registering all good names (popular subreddits) and not posting any content or info in the sidebars. Sort of like parking a domain name. If you notice such subverse and people decide there is a mod who should take it over and work hard - I guess this could be the right way to deal with it. Avain, I'm all ears :)
[–] Goldengoat [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That was something I noticed, too - a large number of Subverses that have been scooped up and claimed, and this sets of my squatter alarm.
On the other hand, mob mentality can also get out of control too and it might get a little chaotic if a subscriber base can kick mods to the curb on a whim. It would also invite various types of abuse, such as 4chan invasions. (Reddit knows all too well the danger of off-site shit-stirrers, Something Awful in their case.)
My gut tells me something like: A supermajority subscriber vote (75%+) to oust a mod and admins have veto power.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] Goldengoat [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That's not really how it worked on reddit. Admins have always taken a hands-off approach and said that if you don't like a subreddit's mod team, the only recourse is to create a new sub.