zlacker

Another moderation risk is that whoever is moderating has an incentive to delete people’s potentially successful posts and repost under their own or a friend’s alt account

>>wlesie+(OP)
when you dont rely on advertiser support you arent beholden to their desires of moderation

when a sub-forum crosses a threshold of insensitivity, just remove it from search and let those fans direct link

sub forums can remain popularity contests where community decides if anything there is a good fit. theyre already echo chambers and nobody is aiming to solve that so just run it that way

>>wlesie+(OP)
People attach a lot of value to fake internet points, so these bad behaviours are already incentivised.

What will be interesting is how they are incentivised differently. Different people attach different relative value to fake internet points and less-fake currency points, so you'll get different behaviour from different sets of people.

>>wlesie+(OP)
Perhaps meta-moderation would work in this scenario? Randomly assign previous moderation choices (anonymizing the moderator) for users to rank. This could to identify moderators that are out of line. It could also lead to echo chambers though.

>>twic+h3
Well, if there's money attached, it will be guaranteed to be constantly gamed and abused.

>>afterb+v4
Whereas if there are fake internet points attached, it is only almost certain to be gamed and abused.

>>inamor+a4
If meta-moderation powers were assigned randomly and uniformly, this could be gamed by just spam-creating tons of accounts. Any system that accepts user input needs to have a robust answer to the question "What if a significant percentage of my users are actually bots under control of a single person?"

>>inamor+a4
I do like /. meta-moderation, but I also feel that the ones contributing the most, interacting the most (via votes/comments) should have a vote to who they want their moderators to be on a regular basis.

>>wlesie+(OP)
A moderator who does this consistently will be crucified, and no one will want to post in the community while they remain.

>>ryandr+Zh
You could disincentivize them by having access to the metamoderation queue behind the subscription. Thus it's $2/mo/user account.

>>qmarch+sD
I wonder how much would a government intelligence or defense department who controls millions of bot accounts be willing to pay per month in order to have even a small percentage of power over who gets to mod (for example) r/ukraine?

>>ryandr+6I
Considering 1 patriot missile costs several millions, it would be pocket change.

>>bee_ri+kb
But it will be gamed and abused by people that care about fake internet points. Those are very different people from those who want to extract as much money by any means available

>>ithink+Q31
If it gets successful enough that people really want to game it, the creator will have proven their concept and can try to tweak it as necessary. I think that would be a fine problem to have.

The basic incentive of money drives all sorts of things. Maybe the best “exploit” will be to find interesting and novel links.

>>wlesie+(OP)
I think the simplest around that is to pay the moderators. So given the $2

- $1 goes to the server

- $.67 goes to the users you upvote

- $.33 goes to the moderator(s) of the group you upvoted in.

So there's actual incentive to want to mod to begin with, and less incentive to risk that by trying to game for post votes as well.

Now ofc I already see a half dozen issues here, so we'd need to deviate strongly from reddit to make this work:

- you can't just create subs willy-nilly. You don't even want that in the beginning anyway because you shouldn't splinter a small community. There would need to be a formal way to talk to an admin and request any new sub. Or at least, we need to delineate from a monetized sub vs. non-monetized, with ways to transition from one to the other.

- This encourages small mod groups and you don't want mods to be able to pick/kick at will now that money is involved. Again, new mods would need some more admin intervention for moderator changes.

- As you can assume, A senior mod won't be equal to a newly recruited mod. So it probably isn't the best idea to spread that mod fund equally per se.

- Mod posts would need to be taken into account as well. Maybe moderators (and possible alts) can't make money off their own posts to avoid double dipping

Lot of interesting ideas to go about. So I hope this site does at least get some visibility

>>johnny+Td1
That sounds good on paper, but I can only imagine it would lead to even worse lowest-common-denominator chasing than exists on reddit right now. Why would the moderators choose to enforce quality standards when crappy (but highly upvoted) memes make them more money?

>>AH4oFV+np
Man: We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--

Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...

Man: But all the decisions of that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--

Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!

Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--

Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!

Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--

Arthur: (very angry) Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

>>dablue+lL1
Ideally that's up to the community. The ideal counter-reaction of this is "Well I'll make my own sub, and attract people tired of memes". In this model, there will hopefully be a sizeable subscriber community, so you don't need to appeal to the masses if the ones willing to put their money where they mouths make the move.

But if not, and if memes are what subscribers want to use all their votes on, well... the experiment fails in my eyes (even if it may be a success as a business).

That's also why I feel we need at least two tiers of votes, personally. There will be times where you want to vote on a cheap but funny meme but you don't exactly want to say "yes, this is the content I pay for". A version of vote that says "I don't mind it but obviously you shouldn't make money on this" may help curb that as more of the super votes go to actual quality content. But nothing is bullet proof when you let the people decide.

>>johnny+Td1
I think that split sounds ripe for abuse. If a mod earns for every upvote, the incentive to just allow memes is just to high.

>>pennea+o21
Yes, and to some extent, what's at stake is to get to choose the next president (or future dictator) in the US.

What's that worth for, say Xi in China - look at how much he is ok with spending on invading Taiwan. And how much he'd save, if a to him a more friendly person (Trump) became the president. Then compare that with $2

>>johnny+Td1
Pay all mods of all subs a fixed amount no matter what. Solved