• mesa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      No joke, Periodic changing of mods might be a better long term strategy. Or like you said a small election from time to time.

        • gerryflap@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 days ago

          Don’t disagree fully, but time/energy is definitely a factor in this. I’m really not going to care enough to make an educated vote in all the communities that I’m in, I have better things to do. And likewise for a lot of people probably. Having 3 people vote in a mod doesn’t exactly give confidence either, it makes it easy to game the system. For smaller communities it’s probably better to retain the “benevolent dictator” system and punish any unruly mods with abandoning their community for a new one.

          • Goldholz @lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            Yes yes. Another solution would be “no ban can be done by a single person/mod but the entire mod team, looking at the evidence aso”

            Or good old lottery instead of voting. Lottery getting random users to be mod for a curtain time

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      Or even better - just let us moderate what we see ourselves. There’s no need for some wannabe dictators to get to decide what we can read or say. I don’t need or want an echo chamber of the mods preferred:allowed opinions and ideologies. As long as it doesn’t break the law just leave it and whoever said it alone, and let everyone else decide how they want to handle it.