One of the main features of my site will be Discourse-style trust levels, the higher your trust level, the more moderation privileges you gain. I’m also considering either a jury system, where multiple users collaborate on moderation decisions, or a meta-moderation system, where users can vote “fair” or “unfair” on moderation actions taken.
Someone mentioned to me in another post that Bluesky also has a very good moderation system, but the best one I’ve found so far is Discourse. What I really like about it is that you earn trust levels by reading posts, not by taking moderation actions. I definitely don’t want to gamify moderation the way Stack Overflow did, that was the worst I’ve ever seen.
deleted by creator
Disagree. Pointing out flaws in a proposal is important, it raises awareness so that they can be resolved.
True of all moderation systems, but is open to abuse. Removing content, even temporarily is good way to censor opinions, by hiding them until they fall off the “new” page. Moderation usually happens quite slowly if the mods arent terminally online. A jury system may exacerbate that if the jurors aren’t available to respond in time.
Penalising false reports also risks discouraging reports, and may actually just encourage “group think”. And if accounts are easy to spin up, there is no real cost to abusing reports to hide content.
I actually think the current systems are actually adequate. We have a moderators who can be replaced at any time by admins, which gives oversight, and we have the ability to simply move communities to other instances if that fails.
deleted by creator
5 posts in the last week vs 100s of moderation actions taken in the last week. Thats actually a really good hit rate, which suggests that the system actually works really well.