You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] peacegnome 7 points -5 points (+2|-7) ago 

go1dfish should always be listened to, and should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

I have also suggested a version of this in the past, but because of the development requirements i never asked in IFV before. In my version you would select which moderators curated your content. For example, you could have the spam bot turned on or off, all the way up to someone who only allows rated G content. My plan would also mean that anyone could be a moderator of any subs, and it would be up to them to get people to use your moderation. There could be stats like correlation, popularity, etc. for the mods.

Anyway, he has all the best intentions, and as long as any censorship that is there, but removable (think google's safe search), I don't think that it is really a problem.


[–] kevdude [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Your plan is far more decentralized. His starts a dangerous slippery slope.

And I don't put anyone on a pedestal.


[–] go1dfish 7 points -7 points (+0|-7) ago  (edited ago)

What @peacegnome is describing is more similar to my older idea as well:

But this suggestion by being more narrow would be more realistic to implement while still achieving a similar result and likely being a path towards a more robust version.