= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Squark comments on Downvote stalkers: Driving members away from the LessWrong community? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (128)
We can set up a system in which mods are elected. This might provide a sufficient amount of mods and wouldn't be authoritarian.
Does anyone have experience with a board that elects its mods?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, though it seems like it's got some interesting complications, such has who gets to vote and keeping the voting honest-- I've just only been on boards where the mods were chosen from the top.
I've seen a board occasionally elect a moderator (with other mods appointed). The resulting drama was way too high for whatever benefits the election may have had.
Formal elections are rare, but vague consensus processes (along the lines of "anyone who cares can nominate a mod; we'll pick whoever gets the most nods as long as they aren't blatantly electioneering") seem pretty common. Honestly I think I'd prefer the latter to the former.
AFAIK, Wikipedia and StackExchange use elected mods. They don't seem to be faring too bad.