I did mention this in my idea:
This would be mean, without access to the PM or the poll within it, they would not be able to vote.
Also, discourse could limit this. If too many accounts are are created in too short of a time, it could disable account creation for a few minutes-hours, depending on the severity.
Depending on the community this could work.
This plugin is broken. However it was designed to do election polls. I imagine if someone(s) wanted to sponsor getting this functional/updated could be a good base.
Though instead of maybe a a TL4 user to instead use for category moderators. From a quick read over this plugin does not upgrade a user so some manual work would need to be done. Though you could also use core’s built in polls.
Well this is a very narrow minded view point. There are many kinds of forums and it comes down to how the site operating body chooses to run their forum. 
Is it? Or realistic? So an admin with role’s unlimited power is like a president? And the way how moderators get powers and are controlled by admins
If you think of the forums like a country, then yeah we can assume admins are the president, moderators are the vice president, and everyone else is just normal people following the law
In the case of the United States, tl4s would be supreme justices, category moderators would be state governors, and tl3s would then be mayors. But if the admins are involved in being a president, then even though they [The Admins] have unlimited power, there are still ways the community could be a democracy both within themselves and without.
As well, good leaders give choice to the people. Nobody likes a totalitarian!
Well a forum isn’t meant to be a democracy. Each one has a purpose, and that doesn’t mean the members’ interests are aligned with the forum’s purpose. Also, if someone really wanted to do this, they’d make a pinned poll themselves. It wouldn’t be a very useful thing t o make.
By this, I mean a discourse feature, not a plugin. plugins would take away part of the purpose, as it would have to be manually installed by an admin.
That depends on the forum itself.
The Op’s proposal idea doesn’t change the core team of a forum(Admin & Moderators). It is about a sub group of facilitators with some moderation abilities.
I like this idea, and I think it fixes problems similar to what twofoursixeight mentioned in the example of the GImkit Creative forms. However, I think it can also turn into a popularity contest which won’t produce good results. In the example of the Gimkit Creative forums, had a solution like this been implemented, the first few picks would have probably been good moderators, but past that the main canidates would have most likely not handled the position well.
While only allowing TL2 members to vote helps a bit, on the Gimkit forums (the only discourse forum I have experience with) many TL2s prefer popular people rather than good moderators. It can also turn into an issue if there becomes a lack of good canidates, as one canidate will win and they may not be a good fit.
If something like this were to be added, there (in my opinion) should be options to set how offten elections occur, or to run a one-time election. I don’t think this is something that’s despereately needed, but it could certaintly be useful. This should also definetely be disabled by default, everywhere.
I see why you may think this.
Discourse is a varied audience, meaning that other forums that are different could use this feature, and even though some people on the Gimkit Forums would not be suited to be a tl4, others would be, and those would be the ones that would be added.
If a person who is not responsible enough is chosen, a moderator could get involved, an easy fix. As well, responsible people and popular people usually come in the same package, as being good at a certain subject can lead to such popularity.
Popularity contests would not be a good thing, which could result in rules regarding the absence of such contests. As well, some popularity contests could be good, promoting good behavior.
I think that new forums after an update including this feature should, in fact, have it on by default, but as I stated earlier, an obvious pop-up would appear when they first log in to their forum, asking them if they would like to change the setting to be off and including some information on the matter.
As well, I already mentioned this factor:
Of course, I’m not opposed to the idea. I think it could be very useful if implemented with the proper options, as I listed above. However, again using the Gimkit forums as an example, some of the people who are currently popular recieve a large number of flags, or are even suspended for a short period of time at the moment. Allowing a popularity contest to control moderation on a forum in any way, from what I’ve seen on the Gimkit forum, would quickly turn bad. There are a few canidates who are very popular who would probably make good mods, but past those maybe 1-2 it quickly becomes a sea of people who are popular but are not always level headed, good role models, etc.
It seems like this idea is designed to supplement a lack of moderation provided by those who run the forum, so the idea that they can check in and demote people who get the position but aren’t good will most likely be a very slow process. With the Gimkit forum, moderation issues went unresolved for sometimes weeks, so if the owner of the forum (josh) were to implement this idea, it seems reasonable that he would expect it to work without needing to check in on it. If the staff don’t check in frequently, the system could produce a bad moderator who disturbs the forum for weeks.
Again, I like the idea. It just shouldn’t be encouraged as a default option, and it should have a good set of controls behind it, so that, as you said, other forums that are different can use this feature.
So if anyone really wanted to do this,
you could simply use a poll. And promote the winners. You don’t need plugins or softwares.
Not everyone wants this update. Just make a poll and use the poll feature built in to the forum.
Just to show you, the IO games forum did this. It worked out surprisingly well, but you do need to manually promote the regulars to leaders.
The reason why it should be done this way is for simplicity. The owner or admins of the forum can post a topic like the one above and when done, they can simply promote them to leaders. No extra software required.
Like I said, on pre-existing forums, this would not be automatically active. As well, I just thought of a quick solution to help with these problems;
To limit bad leaders, I already mentioned only staff/tl4/moderator/admin-nominated users and regular users, each witch should be on good behavior most of the time, would be added to the poll. Also, they would have to give a reason why they should be voted into “office,” updated in their bio, where it is if the feature is on (data will save if turned off and back on again). Also, a large number of community flags might alert the other moderators/admins. Although this wouldn’t completely solve your problem, it could lessen its effect. Overall, it depends on the maturity and essence of the forum.
As I said before, it would only be on by default on NEWLY created forums. A pop-up will appear and ask them if they would like to disable it, giving insight on what it does pros (easier moderation, community voice, etc.) and cons (potentially immature staff). This would also be easily switched off in admin control.
You said rules, and I agree, because moderating comes with a lot of responsibility. It could, potentially, take over one’s life. [1] If you are not moderator-worthy, you could give up. As well, rules could also be used in voting, moderating, creating, etc. Maybe custom flag conditions for tl4s; if the setting is turned on, if a tl4 receives enough flags (they were flagged), the moderation would be notified (marked as urgent) and if they deem the tl4 unworthy, they would demote them.
With the community flags, maybe they could be brought back by moderation (maybe tl4s? Round circle, I would say, but I’m not sure about all of their capabilities.) Maybe a special set of rules applies, that if you flag players for no reason too many times [2], you are automatically disqualified, discouranging popularity contests.
@twofoursixeight, This would not be helpful for some of the people who would benefit from this. Either bad moderation, or creating poll isn’t easy, a built-in, customisable system that can be switched off and on if needed would be the best option overall. Like in the case of @idontexist; They had bad moderation and wanted this feature that moderation could just easily flip on and fix all their problems. And you, just because YOU have your problem solved doesn’t mean others don’t have the same problem you had originally.
And there always is this:
To my knowledge, this has not been officially (or at all) disproved by Discourse, so there always is the possibility…
For @Heliosurge:
What about a vetting algorithm? This is used in many professional systems:
Step 1: Initial Filtering
Retrieve a list of potential candidates who have expressed interest in the Category Mod or TL4 position.
Apply basic filters to exclude users who:
Apply a filter that allows non-regulars to join if they have shown outstanding leadership, such as, but not limited to:
Step 2: Interaction Analysis
Step 3: Flag Review
Step 4: Suspension and Silencing History
Step 5: Candidate Motivation and Availability
Step 6: Confidentiality Agreement
Not sure about this one:
Step 7: Final Evaluation and Selection
Post-Election Monitoring
Tuning and Refining the Algorithm
By implementing this vetting algorithm, you can increase the chances of selecting qualified and suitable candidates for Category Mod and TL4 positions, while minimizing the risk of electing individuals who may compromise the community or site values.
As for other challenges you suggested;
If it must be so, then it would be off automatically for all forums, but the pop-up would still appear asking them if they would like to turn it on.
As for your other part, I’m not sure that it would be both a core feature or promotion-effective. As well, it is still a plugin and a lot of forums don’t introduce many plugins, defeating part of it’s purpose.
AI can apply common filters that would be effective. It would use both statistics and reasoning to continue.
AI, to my knowledge, does not cost money, only time and memory, for both testing, coding, running, etc.
They could be accomplished by full staff, but it would be harder and more time-consuming. AI would be the better contestant and would give staff more time to moderate and complete other tasks while leaving free time because online staff members also have a life. Unlike AI.
I also wasn’t sure about the agreement because there is conflicting opinions and try to stay as unbiased as possible why collecting supporting information. There would be a simpler contract; Bad → Demoted
As well, modern AI is very well-behaved if trained well, and also intelligent, so it would be able to handle data well without lying. For a lot of AIs, that’s their entire purpose.
Finally, this is a setting that can be easily turned on and off, so it would, ultimately, be the choice of the Admin, so they could use this feature or not, It just opens up a convenient, effective, and community-friendly solution to tl4 problems, and also gives the community a voice in moderation.
The core Staff admin and full Moderators would not be voted in. The proposed optional option is for Category Mods & TL4. Agreed the candidates need to be vetted and have conditions on qualifying as a candidate. If an elected sub mod helper steps out of line the core site staff would need to deal with it.
A proposed candidate would need to be examined. How they interact, have they had flags against them? If so we’re they minor or major? Have they been silenced and/or suspended. Do they want the position if elected?
A lot of tuning needs to be done and implement in the process of any site. If care is taken it can enhance engagement or if not can hamper a community
Full Mods have abilities that no community member should have without proper vetting and confidentiality agreements in place
No even new forums this could not be standard. It would need to be an optional feature be it a plugin, theme component or part of core.
Site staff team needs to have full control of optional features.
Check out Topic Voting plugin. A category made for this purpose could have the category made accessible when needed. Then each candidate could campaign in their topic and the users could vote on the candidate topic.
For the most part your describing a proposed procedure
Full site team would need to do some manual work. This could be enhanced somewhat using Data Explorer plugin query.
A good site team will have a good feel/awareness of their user base
Not everyone will want to spend on using AI. Though it is getting to be more affordable.
Step 3 & Step 4 & Step 5 can be evaluated by full staff and again can use a data explorer query to help make process easier. As these “elections” shouldn’t be that often. Some human work is ideal.
This is more of need for full staff as depending on settings they have access to things for example like email addresses.
TL4 and Cat Mods do not have that level of access so a more simple agreement would do. If an elected sub mod fails in their duty or abusing the privilege then the site team needs to determine a corrective action. Be it revoking the sub mod privileges and possibly silence or ban.
Similar to any company those in the higher positions need to monitor and evaluate. Data inquiries with human involvement best. Otherwise you get into the inhuman situations of FB and Toba lesser degree Reddit.
Ultimately your proposed idea of how to. Would be a suggested procedure. The Core site team has to determine if they use the idea of electing sub mods on how they will have it work and tweak the process along the way.
Many sites will not use this type of concept for a variety of reasons as Jag said. One for example a business that uses it for employees & customers will want their company to appoint people to the roles. So this cannot be a standard forced on Discourse Meta customers/clients.
As I stated in many updates to my last post [1], AI is, in fact, competent [2]. To prove this further, I will have it generate 4 different papers, each talking about the current discussion:
To explore the idea of this topic and the corresponding Trust Level 4 (TL4) Promotion by Community Election Poll idea, we must explore the benefits of allowing forum members to elect their own leaders, address potential concerns, and provide counterarguments that ultimately reinforce the value of this system. The document details several ideas, led by the proposal from Unit_72 (Starlightier), which suggests an electoral system for the promotion of TL4s, or leaders, in online communities. This essay will support the idea by focusing on the strengths of community engagement, accountability, and inclusiveness, while addressing concerns related to popularity contests, potential for abuse, and the role of moderators.
A significant advantage of allowing TL4 promotions through community election polls is that it enhances community engagement. By involving users in leadership decisions, members become more invested in the growth and direction of the forum. As Unit_72 suggests, TL4s often serve as the backbone of forums, and who better to elect these leaders than the users who know their community best? Allowing community members to vote on their leaders gives a sense of ownership and belonging, encouraging active participation and fostering a strong sense of community.
Additionally, this system ensures that popular and trusted members, those who have contributed positively and consistently to the forum, are given the chance to lead. These individuals will likely act in the forum’s best interest because they’ve been selected by their peers, rather than being appointed solely by administrators. Jericson’s experience, highlighted in the document, where elections were used for moderator selection, demonstrated that elections can successfully fill leadership roles when properly implemented【6†source】.
Another strength of the proposal is the accountability it introduces to the TL4 role. Elected leaders are not only accountable to the administrators and moderators but also to the wider community. This creates a dual layer of accountability, wherein leaders must maintain their integrity and positive contributions to remain in good standing with both the administrators and the community that elected them.
As Starlightier suggests, users might compete for leadership positions, but measures could be put in place to ensure that bad behavior, such as frequent flagging for poor moderation, would alert administrators and lead to possible demotion【6†source】. This method provides a check-and-balance system, allowing the community to police itself while maintaining oversight by moderators.
One of the most significant concerns raised is the risk of turning elections into popularity contests. Critics argue that such elections might not result in the best candidates being chosen, but rather the most popular ones, who may not always be the most suitable for the position. For example, Blackhole927 worries that popularity could override leadership quality in some forums, especially when popular candidates receive frequent flags or even short suspensions【6†source】.
While this concern is valid, mechanisms can be introduced to mitigate the risks associated with popularity contests. Starlightier proposed several solutions to ensure that only responsible and deserving candidates are included in the election, such as allowing only trusted-level 2 (TL2) members to vote and requiring nominees to maintain a good behavioral record【6†source】. Moreover, automatic disqualification could be enforced for users who receive a high number of valid flags, ensuring that the system rewards trustworthy behavior rather than simple popularity.
In addition, vetting algorithms could be employed to analyze candidates’ interaction history and identify users who demonstrate leadership potential. A combination of community voting and administrative oversight would minimize the risk of electing unfit leaders. Moreover, popularity is not inherently negative, as Unit_72 pointed out—many responsible leaders are popular because of their valuable contributions and positive interactions【6†source】.
Another concern relates to automation and the potential for abuse, such as the creation of alternate accounts (alts) to influence election outcomes. Critics like twofoursixeight raised this issue, suggesting that users might exploit the system to unfairly promote candidates through artificial means【6†source】.
This issue can be mitigated through several technical safeguards. First, limiting voting to TL2+ users, as Starlightier recommended, would prevent new or basic users from having undue influence. Second, discourse platforms could impose anti-bot measures, such as throttling the creation of new accounts during election periods, to prevent the manipulation of polls【6†source】. Additionally, automated tools could detect suspicious patterns of voting, such as multiple votes originating from the same IP address or in short succession.
Furthermore, to ensure fairness, administrators could require justifications for nominations to be included in the voting process, as proposed by Unit_72. Candidates would need to update their bios with reasoning as to why they should be voted into office【6†source】. This additional layer of transparency could discourage the use of bots and alt accounts, as candidates would need to publicly demonstrate their qualifications.
One argument raised by Jagster is that forums should not be democracies and that moderation roles are based on competence, not popularity【6†source】. The concern here is that elected TL4s might be unworthy of their position, disrupting the balance of the forum.
While it is true that moderation requires competence, there is no reason why community-driven elections cannot work alongside administrative moderation. In fact, Starlightier specifically included provisions that would allow administrators to reverse promotions if a user proves unworthy【6†source】. This ensures that while the community has a say in leadership, the ultimate decision still rests with experienced administrators who can intervene if necessary.
Additionally, the proposal includes a vetting process for potential candidates, ensuring that only those who have demonstrated good behavior and engagement are eligible for election. This hybrid approach combines the benefits of community-driven elections with the safety net of administrative oversight, maintaining the integrity of the TL4 role.
In conclusion, the idea of promoting TL4 leaders through community election polls offers several key benefits, including enhanced community engagement, accountability, and inclusiveness. Although concerns about popularity contests, automation, and the unworthiness of elected leaders exist, each of these issues can be addressed through technical safeguards, vetting processes, and administrative oversight. The hybrid system proposed by Unit_72 and other contributors strikes a balance between community participation and moderation control, making it a viable option for forums seeking to empower their users while maintaining order and fairness.
By exploring this conversation and the election system that is proposed, we affirm that democracy within forums can foster a healthier and more engaged community, where members feel a sense of ownership and responsibility. As forums evolve, introducing election systems with appropriate checks and balances could be the future of community leadership.
The concept of promoting Trust Level 4 (TL4) users via community election polls introduces a unique method of leadership selection that could enhance community participation, accountability, and inclusiveness. This essay examines the idea proposed in the context of the Discourse forum structure, giving attention to both positive contributions and potential challenges. While focusing on the advantages, we will also objectively explore criticisms and their possible solutions, with the aim of presenting a balanced perspective.
One of the most significant benefits of electing TL4 users is the engagement it fosters within the community. As proposed by Unit_72 (Starlightier), TL4 users—who typically function as “lite-moderators”—play an integral role in maintaining the community’s health and spirit. The ability to choose these leaders gives regular users an additional sense of involvement, fostering a deeper connection to the forum. It encourages members to take ownership of their interactions and the overall direction of the community, as they are directly involved in selecting those who will moderate and represent them【6†source】.
This sense of involvement could potentially enhance forum activity. When members feel their input matters, they are more likely to stay active and contribute meaningfully. Jericson’s experience in running elections for moderators supports this idea, noting that the election process successfully engaged the community and led to an effective moderation team【6†source】. Extending this to TL4 elections could have similar outcomes, encouraging a positive feedback loop of active engagement and leadership development.
Another major advantage of community elections is the increased accountability of TL4s. When users are selected by their peers, they are inherently more responsible to those peers. This establishes a form of self-regulation, where elected leaders are accountable to both the moderators and the wider community.
Transparency in this process also creates a sense of fairness. By having clear election procedures, such as only allowing trusted-level 2 (TL2) users to vote, the system ensures that elections are conducted with a level of integrity and oversight. Unit_72 outlined that users involved in the voting process must have shown consistent engagement and behavior within the forum, which adds a layer of legitimacy to the election process【6†source】.
Electing TL4 users through polls allows the community to elevate members who reflect their values and needs, ensuring that the leadership is representative of the active user base. Forums with diverse topics and demographics could benefit from this system, as it ensures that leadership is not dictated solely by the administrators or moderators, who may not have full visibility into the day-to-day interactions of the community.
This could also result in a more dynamic leadership team that evolves as the forum grows and changes. As new users join and others leave, elections ensure that the leadership remains relevant and in touch with the current makeup of the forum. It encourages a democratic approach where members feel empowered to contribute to the direction of the forum, potentially resulting in better communication and community cohesion.
A common concern raised about TL4 elections is that they might devolve into popularity contests, where users are elected based on social standing rather than merit. Critics argue that this could result in leaders who are ill-equipped to handle the responsibilities of TL4, or who do not maintain the necessary level of professionalism.
While popularity contests are a valid concern, this issue can be managed through careful implementation. Starlightier addressed this by suggesting that only users who have demonstrated positive engagement and good behavior should be eligible to run in these elections【6†source】. In addition, the forum’s moderation team would retain the ability to oversee and reverse any promotions if an elected TL4 proves to be unsuitable.
The idea here is that while popularity may play a role, it would not necessarily lead to poor leadership. Often, those who are well-liked within a community are also those who contribute meaningfully and behave responsibly. By introducing vetting processes, where candidates’ behavior and interactions are reviewed, forums can ensure that only qualified individuals are considered for promotion【6†source】. This process strikes a balance between community participation and moderation oversight, allowing elections to proceed fairly while mitigating the risks of unfit candidates being elected.
Another issue involves the potential for abuse, particularly through automation and the use of alternate accounts (or “alts”) to manipulate the election results. Some forum members, like twofoursixeight, raised concerns that automated voting could unfairly skew the results【6†source】.
Automation and abuse are valid concerns, but they can be addressed through specific safeguards. One solution is limiting voting eligibility to TL2 or higher, as these users have a track record of activity and engagement. Furthermore, anti-bot measures can be put in place to throttle account creation during election periods, preventing users from creating multiple accounts to sway results【6†source】.
Forums could also employ algorithms to monitor election activity and flag suspicious behavior, such as multiple votes from the same IP address. Additionally, requiring justifications from candidates as to why they deserve to be elected can discourage superficial or bot-driven campaigns. As Starlightier proposed, candidates would need to update their bios with reasons why they are suitable for the role, adding an extra layer of transparency to the process【6†source】.
Another objection is the concern that elected TL4s may not be competent in their role, leading to bad moderation. Some critics, such as Jagster, argue that forums are not democracies and that moderation should be based on competence, not popularity【6†source】.
While it is true that moderation requires specific skills and a high level of responsibility, this criticism assumes that a democratic election process cannot produce competent leaders. In reality, elections can complement existing moderation practices. As proposed, elections would not replace the role of moderators; rather, they would supplement it by adding another layer of leadership【6†source】.
Furthermore, forums would retain the option to veto or demote leaders who prove unfit for the role. Unit_72 outlined several safeguards, including the ability for administrators and moderators to reverse promotions if the elected TL4 does not fulfill their duties responsibly【6†source】. By combining elections with a clear vetting and review process, forums can ensure that only competent and deserving users are promoted to leadership roles.
It is essential to strike a balance between community-driven elections and administrative oversight. Forums that adopt this system would need to implement several layers of protection to ensure that the election process remains fair and effective. Unit_72 suggested that elections should only be enabled on forums where administrators choose to implement them【6†source】. This flexibility ensures that not all forums are bound by the election system, allowing each community to decide what best suits their needs.
In addition, the process of vetting candidates, monitoring election behavior, and ensuring that elected leaders align with the community’s values is critical to the success of the system. Heliosurge emphasized that while elections are a tool for engagement, the forum’s core staff should always retain control over the forum’s direction, stepping in when necessary to enforce rules and protect the integrity of the community【6†source】.
In conclusion, the concept of TL4 promotion through community election polls offers numerous benefits to online forums, particularly in terms of community engagement,
The proposed system for Trust Level 4 (TL4) Promotion by Community Election Poll, primarily championed by Unit_72 (Starlightier), envisions a process where community members can directly participate in selecting their leaders. This system is designed to enhance community involvement, ensure leadership accountability, and provide flexibility for different forum needs. The process integrates both democratic elements and necessary safeguards to maintain fairness, avoid abuse, and ensure that only qualified candidates are elected. Below is a detailed description of how the entire system would work, revised to include all positive additions and key elements, with a strong focus on Unit_72’s vision.
The election system would be initiated periodically, with the frequency customizable by the forum administrators. Administrators would have the option to configure how often elections occur, ranging from every two weeks to two years, depending on the community’s needs. Unit_72’s suggestion was that Discobot, or a similar automated tool, would send Personal Messages (PMs) to eligible users when an election is initiated. This automation ensures that the election process is smoothly managed without requiring constant manual intervention【6†source】.
The election would only be open to members who have attained at least Trust Level 2 (TL2), which ensures that only users with sufficient engagement and understanding of the community participate in the vote. This eliminates the influence of newer or inactive users who may not fully understand the forum’s dynamics.
The system for candidate selection is key to ensuring that only capable and responsible users are included in the election. Unit_72 outlined that only trusted and active members should be eligible for nomination. Candidates would either need to be nominated by existing TL4 members, moderators, or administrators, have shown outstanding membership, or would need to have reached Trust Level 3 (TL3) through their engagement with the community.
Once nominated, candidates would be required to update their bios with a dedicated section, separate from the normal UI, explaining why they should be elected as a TL4 user. This bio section would be visible during the election, providing voters with context about each candidate’s qualifications and motivations【6†source】. This transparency ensures that voters are making informed decisions based on the candidates’ merits.
To further ensure the quality of candidates, Unit_72 proposed the use of a vetting algorithm. This algorithm would review each candidate’s history within the forum, including:
Candidates with serious or frequent infractions would be disqualified from the election, ensuring that only those with positive engagement histories and clean behavioral records can run.
Once candidates have been vetted and approved, the election would proceed with a poll system. This poll system would be integrated directly into the forum platform and accessible to TL2 and above users. Discobot or a similar automated service would send out the poll to eligible voters, allowing them to select their preferred candidate(s) from the list【6†source】.
The poll would be active for 7 days by default, though this time period could be adjusted by forum administrators. During this time, eligible users would be allowed to vote, and the results would be collected automatically by the forum’s built-in polling system. The poll could allow multiple votes, depending on the number of open TL4 positions, or be limited to a single vote per user【6†source】.
The results of the poll would be visible only to administrators and moderators during the voting process to prevent bias and undue influence. Once the poll is closed, the results would be announced to the community, and the top vote-getter would be promoted to TL4 status.
In the event of a tie, or if the top candidate rejects the promotion, the election system would follow a predefined process. According to Unit_72, Discobot would randomly select a winner in case of a tie, ensuring that the election moves forward without delay【6†source】. If a candidate rejects the position, the role would be offered to the next highest vote-getter [/candidate]. This ensures that the process remains smooth and that a TL4 position does not remain unfilled.
Once a user is promoted to TL4, post-election monitoring would ensure that the new TL4 behaves responsibly and fulfills the duties of their role. Unit_72 proposed that any TL4 user who receives a high number of flags or engages in bad moderation would be reviewed by administrators. If their behavior is deemed unacceptable, their promotion could be reversed【6†source】.
Additionally, popularity contests—where users are elected solely based on their social standing rather than their qualifications—would be discouraged. The election system would track flagging patterns to ensure that users who abuse the flagging system to target opponents are automatically disqualified from future elections. This prevents toxic behavior and ensures that elections focus on merit rather than manipulation【6†source】.
Despite being a community-driven election process, the forum’s administrators and moderators would retain the final say over TL4 promotions. This provides a crucial safeguard to the system, ensuring that forum leadership remains aligned with the community’s values and goals.
Unit_72 suggested that administrators should have the ability to disable elections or revert promotions if they believe the elected TL4 user is not a good fit. In cases where the election process is not desirable, administrators could also choose to hand-pick TL4 candidates without a vote【6†source】. This flexibility allows each forum to tailor the system to its specific needs, ensuring that the election process does not override the core principles of moderation and community safety.
To account for varying forum needs, the election system would include several customizable settings:
This high degree of customization allows forums to implement the system in a way that suits their specific dynamics while maintaining the spirit of community involvement.
Unit_72’s proposal includes integrating advanced algorithms to evaluate potential TL4 candidates more thoroughly. The algorithm would conduct the following checks:
This algorithm would act as a pre-screening tool, ensuring that only the most qualified and suitable candidates make it to the election. While advanced AI could be used, the algorithm would still involve manual oversight by forum staff, balancing automation with human judgment.
To accommodate diverse forum needs, Unit_72 proposed that the election feature would not be automatically enabled on all existing forums. Instead, administrators would receive a pop-up notification asking whether they would like to enable this feature. This allows each forum to choose whether it wishes to implement the election process【6†source】.
For newly created forums, the election system would be enabled by default, but administrators could choose to disable it during the forum setup process. This flexibility ensures that the system can be easily adopted by communities that would benefit from it, while those that prefer other forms of moderation retain full control over their structure.
The TL4 promotion system proposed by Unit_72 offers a well-thought-out blend of community involvement, accountability, and administrative oversight. By allowing forums to elect their TL4 users, it encourages active participation and empowers users to take responsibility for the leadership of their community. At the same time, safeguards like vetting algorithms, flagging systems, and administrator control ensure that elections remain fair and that only qualified, responsible users are promoted.
The customizability of the system, from election frequency to nomination criteria, ensures that it can be adapted to suit the needs of a wide range of forums. Ultimately, the TL4 election system creates a more dynamic, inclusive, and accountable forum environment, fostering a stronger sense of community while maintaining the integrity of leadership roles.
The Trust Level 4 (TL4) Promotion by Community Election Poll system, as proposed by Unit_72 (Starlightier), integrates several additional features to ensure a fair and efficient election process. These overlooked yet vital elements reinforce the system’s ability to identify qualified leaders while maintaining a sense of transparency and engagement. Below, we dive into these key points and other features that complement the election system, each providing an essential aspect of how it operates.
One of the important features of this system is the use of brilliant badges to identify users who have demonstrated excellence in the forum. These badges, which reward users for exemplary contributions, such as well-received posts, insightful replies, or solutions to problems, would act as indicators of leadership potential. Users who have earned a significant number of high-level badges—such as “Great Topic,” “Great Reply,” “New User of the Month,” or similar—would be flagged by the system as potential TL4 candidates.
This integration ensures that the election system takes into account not only the quantity of a user’s contributions but also the quality. By focusing on users who have received community recognition through badges, the forum can promote leaders who have already demonstrated their commitment, expertise, and respect within the community【6†source】.
The badge system provides an objective measure of a candidate’s merit, serving as an additional layer of vetting to ensure that those who are elected have consistently proven themselves to be responsible and helpful members of the community.
Another feature that adds clarity and transparency to the election process is the creation of a separate box within a user’s profile for entering justifications as to why they should be elected as TL4. This new section would be distinct from the user’s main bio, positioned below the bio, and would serve exclusively for election-related information.
This section allows candidates to outline their reasons for running, their qualifications, and what they would bring to the TL4 role. This addition benefits both human voters and the vetting algorithm, as the system can easily differentiate between the user’s personal bio and their election campaign.
By separating the election justification from the main bio, the system ensures that voters and algorithms can easily evaluate candidates’ qualifications without needing to sort through unrelated personal information. This also encourages transparency, as candidates are held accountable for the information they present to the community during the election【6†source】.
A critical feature of the election system is that only one TL4 is promoted per election cycle. This decision ensures that each election focuses on finding the most qualified candidate rather than diluting the process by electing multiple users at once. The focus on a single promotion ensures that the election remains competitive and that voters make their decision carefully, knowing that only one individual will be promoted to TL4【6†source】.
This limitation also simplifies the election process, reducing the complexity of managing multiple promotions and ensuring that the promotion is meaningful. It enhances the sense of achievement for the elected candidate, as their election reflects the collective trust and support of the community. Additionally, this method prevents overcrowding of TL4 positions, ensuring that each promoted user has a unique role and responsibility within the community.
As discussed earlier, the frequency of elections can be adjusted by the administrators. Unit_72 suggested a default election cycle of every two months, but this can be customized by the forum’s administrators to suit the community’s size and activity level【6†source】. Elections can occur more frequently in active forums or less often in smaller communities, ensuring that the election system remains dynamic and responsive to the community’s needs.
Moreover, forums can opt for one-time elections if the moderators or administrators are unsure about who to choose for TL4 and want to involve the community in the decision-making process【6†source】. This flexibility allows forums to implement the system without making it a permanent or mandatory feature, giving administrators full control over the frequency and necessity of elections.
Once elected, TL4s would be closely monitored through the community flagging system to ensure that they continue to perform their duties responsibly. If a TL4 is flagged for poor behavior, such as bad moderation or inappropriate actions, these flags would alert administrators and moderators, who could review the situation and decide whether to revoke the TL4 status.
This feature acts as a safety net, ensuring that community-driven elections do not result in the promotion of unfit leaders. Repeated or serious infractions would prompt administrators to demote the TL4, thus maintaining the integrity of the leadership role. Similarly, if a user receives multiple flags without justification (for example, due to a personal vendetta or as part of a popularity contest), the flagger would be automatically disqualified from future elections, discouraging flagging abuse【6†source】.
While concerns about popularity contests are valid, the system incorporates several safeguards to mitigate these risks. For example, Unit_72 proposed that only users with demonstrated leadership skills and positive behavior (measured by badges, post history, and flagging records) would be eligible for election【6†source】. This means that users who are popular but have not contributed meaningfully or who have a history of bad behavior would not be eligible for election.
Additionally, the voting system would be structured in such a way that users cannot vote based solely on personal relationships or popularity. The use of badges, user contributions, and transparency in the election justification box would ensure that candidates are judged based on their merits rather than their social standing alone. Furthermore, administrative oversight remains a critical component, allowing moderators to step in and reverse promotions if they feel that the election results were not in the community’s best interest.
The vetting algorithm would be further refined with AI capabilities to analyze user contributions, flagging history, and behavioral patterns more efficiently. The algorithm could examine sentiment analysis in user posts, identifying candidates who are consistently respectful, helpful, and constructive. This AI-assisted analysis would ensure that the election process remains objective and data-driven, reducing the risk of unqualified candidates being promoted【6†source】.
Moreover, the vetting system could include machine learning capabilities, allowing it to improve over time based on feedback from administrators and moderators. As the algorithm collects more data on successful TL4 candidates and problematic promotions, it would be able to fine-tune its criteria, leading to more accurate candidate recommendations in future elections.
Unit_72’s system also considers the scenario where the elected TL4 chooses to reject the promotion. If the elected candidate declines the role, the position would be offered to the runner-up based on the election results. If the second-place candidate also rejects the role, it would be passed to the third-place candidate, and so on. If all candidates reject the promotion, no TL4 would be elected during that cycle【6†source】.
This feature ensures that the election process is flexible and continues smoothly even if the top candidate does not accept the role. It avoids the need to rerun the election, ensuring that the community’s decision is respected and that a TL4 is promoted without undue delay.
The Trust Level 4 Promotion by Community Election Poll system proposed by Unit_72 is a comprehensive, flexible, and community-driven method for selecting forum leaders. It introduces key features such as the use of badges to identify qualified candidates, a dedicated bio section for election justifications, and strict vetting processes to ensure that elections focus on merit rather than popularity. By promoting one TL4 per election and implementing safeguards such as flagging systems and administrative oversight, the system remains fair and accountable.
Incorporating advanced AI capabilities and flexible election frequencies further enhances the system’s effectiveness, allowing it to be adapted to the needs of different forums. Overall, this election system not only empowers the community but also ensures that leadership roles are filled by responsible and qualified individuals, maintaining the forum’s integrity and fostering a more engaged and inclusive environment.
In my opinion, AI did a good job at analyzing the given data and making executive observations and decisions in all four. This is why a vetting Algortitm would not be a bad idea.
(I realized its also gives some reasons on why this would be a good idea, so maybe read those parts too.)
I think you may need to reread what I posted. Your idea can only be an option and the use of AI a choice due to cost and other factors.
Discourse is an open platform in such any idea can with work be implemented. This idea cannot be a forced default nor can. Your proposed procedures can only be suggested. Each community needs to make decisions on potential use of features for themselves.
Direct human interaction with this type of thing is a best practice even if using AI.
In that essence a vote would not work because it would not directly alter the trust level of the individual, requiring moderation and defeating most of the purpose.
As well, it is as simple as one thing. If you do not wish to hold elections or wish that it would not directly change the status, or want direct human approval without, rather than alongside, the algorithm, then simply toggle or customize the election in your admin settings.
This would solve all your presented problems, though it was stated in the original post.
As well, if you still, for some reason, are against the election, this still is an idea, and is not yet approved by Discourse staff.