-
Risk should be minimal if the forum assembles a team of moderators who just kill everything out of line with fire
I thought about this just this morning.
If some programmers have time you could build wide-scale community moderation.
i.e.
- If you've been on the forum longer than n time and have posted more than x times... you're on the moderation team
- Anything reported creates a thread in a hidden forum, and a notification to all moderators something needs acting on
- No single moderator can do anything, a consensus would have to emerge, i.e this protects against a bad moderator, and also means in the messy cases the majority opinion wins... this is a "vote for ban", "vote for delete", "vote for shadowban" type thing... whichever gets the most votes on some scale would be auto-applied
This kind of thing would mean you don't have to have one or two, or even 10, people be a moderator... you'd have hundreds immediately.
The tuning of "default actions after x time" would be something the site admin does to reduce the risk to Directors... but otherwise you could groupthink the moderation and diffuse it widely.
- If you've been on the forum longer than n time and have posted more than x times... you're on the moderation team
Yep, good call. One thing I would say is that for years the responsibility, stress, effort and risk have all fallen on one person. If we can get enough people to step up, all of that responsibility is then shared.
If we can get a number of directors (10?), then there are 10 names on the register, not just one. I believe that even with Open Collective, you can have a number of named admins of a collective, so again, that responsibility is shared.
To be fair, each named person bears the same level of risk, but at least they know that if they go down, others are going with them!