Hi again (5 days later),
Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion & insightful ideas. I think I personally am fairly much done with this topic ... below, I'd just like to write something about my personal conclusions. And then reply to individual people.
Ok, after reading the discussion here, it seems to me a TL 2.5 makes sense if designing something from scratch.
But Discourse already exists & works fine, and I suppose this new trust level wouldn't do so much useful, in comparison to how-long-it-takes-to-discuss-and-implement. I guess there are more important things on the roadmap. ... But perhaps worth revisiting a TL 2.5, a few years later, when there aren't so many other important things on the roadmap any longer :- ) (because they have all been handled).
Hmm, I'd like to recap what I see as the 2 benefits with a TL 2.5:
1) Saves time for staff & Leaders & regulars — because TL 2.5 supposedly lets more trustworthy-&-good-judgement people help out with moderation.
2) Might make these infrequently visiting, but trustworthy-&-good-judgement, members feel a little bit more appreciated — someone has thought about them and given them their own trust level.
Below follows replies to individual people.
And @erlend_sh also suggested looking the likes-to-num-post ratio.
I think that's a good idea. Also, all like-votes are not the same. A like vote from staff + Leaders because you wrote something insightful, could be worth more, than [many like votes by fairly new members because you posted a joke].
(I have some more ideas about this, but might be better of in a separate topic.)
This was a bit hard. I'm thinking most or all TL3 permissions would make sense also for TL2.5, except for "Daily like limit increased by 2 ×".
If a TL 2.5 was similar to TL 3 permission wise, then, perhaps a TL 3 would be useful, mainly as something you need to have had for like 90% of a year, in order to be considered for promotion to a Leader. So TL 3 wouldn't add so many new permissions, it'd instead be a step on the way to becoming a Leader. — Perhaps a trust level isn't needed for this. A badge might work, too, hmm.
How TL 2.5 granted? I'm thinking via a fairly high like-votes vs posts-posted ratio, + not shown signs of bad behavior.
Hmm I guess I'm thinking there could be another purpose, too, of the trust levels — to reward good contributions & helpful flags, even if happens infrequently only (but consistently over a long period of time).
I think the image you linked from the Defining trust levels topic, the one with Assistant Mod and Scholar, is interesting. I hadn't thought about there being two kind of "high-trust" users, namely both Assistant Mod and Scholar. I'm thinking Discourse a bit takes this into account, because if one casts good flags, then, the weight of ones flags, will increase. To me this looks as if D. in that way a bit automatically gives more powers to good flaggers, which a bit seems to corresponds to Assistant Mod, hmm.
I agree. The name I initially suggested, Considerate = kind and helpful, was just the best name I could come up with, at that time. I suppose a good moderator also can be brief & terse, and should be able to make "tough" decisions.
That might work, yes. The problem is that it takes time for the staff — that works against what I see as the main benefit with a TL 2.5, namely to save time. Hmm, yes easier to do, than coming up with an algorithm. However, one would need to do it over and over again. The algorithm would be "invented" just once, and then help "everyone", "forever".
Yes, I think in Discourse's case, perhaps that'd work almost equally well. (I do think it seems/feels like a good thing, though, to differentiate between infrequently-visiting-helpful-people & very-regularly-visiting-helpful-people.)
The way I look at it, TL 2.5 would be auto-lost too, if the like-vs-num-posts ratio drops too much, or because of flags.
Ok :- ) Interesting to hear from someone in that particular situation, i.e. losing TL 3, although probably still being a good contributor & "helper" (just not as often as before).