Mencioné esto en mi idea:
Esto sería mezquino, sin acceso al MP o a la encuesta dentro de él, no podrían votar.
Además, Discourse podría limitar esto. Si se crean demasiadas cuentas en muy poco tiempo, podría deshabilitar la creación de cuentas durante unos minutos o horas, dependiendo de la gravedad.
Dependiendo de la comunidad, esto podría funcionar.
Este plugin está roto. Sin embargo, fue diseñado para hacer encuestas electorales. Me imagino que si alguien quisiera patrocinar que esto sea funcional/actualizado podría ser una buena base.
Aunque en lugar de quizás un usuario TL4, se podría usar para moderadores de categoría. Por una lectura rápida de este plugin, no actualiza a un usuario, por lo que se necesitaría algo de trabajo manual. Sin embargo, también podrías usar las encuestas integradas del núcleo.
Bueno, esta es una opinión muy estrecha de miras. Hay muchos tipos de foros y todo depende de cómo el organismo que opera el sitio elija administrar su foro. 
¿Lo es? ¿O realista? Entonces, ¿un administrador con poderes ilimitados es como un presidente? Y la forma en que los moderadores obtienen poderes y son controlados por los administradores
Si piensas en los foros como un país, entonces sí, podemos asumir que los administradores son el presidente, los moderadores son el vicepresidente y todos los demás son gente normal que sigue la ley.
En el caso de los Estados Unidos, los tl4 serían jueces supremos, los moderadores de categoría serían gobernadores estatales y los tl3 serían alcaldes. Pero si los administradores están involucrados como presidentes, entonces, aunque ellos [los administradores] tengan poder ilimitado, todavía hay formas en que la comunidad podría ser una democracia tanto interna como externamente.
Además, los buenos líderes dan opciones a la gente. ¡A nadie le gusta un totalitario!
Bueno, un foro no está pensado para ser una democracia. Cada uno tiene un propósito, y eso no significa que los intereses de los miembros estén alineados con el propósito del foro. Además, si alguien realmente quisiera hacer esto, crearía una encuesta fijada por sí mismo. No sería algo muy útil de hacer.
Con esto, me refiero a una característica del discurso, no a un plugin. Los plugins quitarían parte del propósito, ya que tendrían que ser instalados manualmente por un administrador.
Eso depende del foro en sí.
La idea de propuesta del OP no cambia el equipo principal de un foro (administrador y moderadores). Se trata de un subgrupo de facilitadores con algunas habilidades de moderación.
Me gusta esta idea y creo que soluciona problemas similares a los que doscuatroseis mencionó en el ejemplo de los formularios de GImkit Creative. Sin embargo, creo que también puede convertirse en un concurso de popularidad que no producirá buenos resultados. En el ejemplo de los foros de Gimkit Creative, si se hubiera implementado una solución como esta, las primeras selecciones probablemente habrían sido buenos moderadores, pero más allá de eso, los principales candidatos probablemente no habrían manejado bien el puesto.
Si bien permitir solo a los miembros TL2 votar ayuda un poco, en los foros de Gimkit (el único foro de Discourse con el que tengo experiencia) muchos TL2 prefieren a personas populares en lugar de buenos moderadores. También puede convertirse en un problema si hay una falta de buenos candidatos, ya que ganará un candidato y es posible que no sea el adecuado.
Si se agregara algo como esto, en mi opinión, debería haber opciones para establecer la frecuencia con la que ocurren las elecciones, o para realizar una elección única. No creo que esto sea algo que se necesite desesperadamente, pero ciertamente podría ser útil. Esto también debería estar definitivamente deshabilitado por defecto, en todas partes.
Entiendo por qué podrías pensar eso.
Discourse tiene una audiencia variada, lo que significa que otros foros diferentes podrían usar esta función, e incluso si algunas personas en los Foros de Gimkit no fueran adecuadas para un tl4, otras sí lo serían, y esas serían las que se añadirían.
Si se elige a una persona que no es lo suficientemente responsable, un moderador podría intervenir, una solución fácil. Además, las personas responsables y populares suelen ir juntas, ya que ser bueno en un tema determinado puede llevar a tal popularidad.
Los concursos de popularidad no serían algo bueno, lo que podría resultar en reglas que prohíban tales concursos. Además, algunos concursos de popularidad podrían ser buenos, promoviendo un buen comportamiento.
Creo que los nuevos foros después de una actualización que incluya esta función deberían, de hecho, tenerla activada por defecto, pero como mencioné anteriormente, aparecería una ventana emergente obvia cuando inicien sesión por primera vez en su foro, preguntándoles si desean cambiar la configuración a desactivada e incluyendo información al respecto.
Además, ya mencioné este factor:
[quote=“Starlightier, post:16, topic:286754, username:Unit_72”]El valor predeterminado sería de 2 meses, pero esto podría cambiarse a un mínimo de 2 semanas y un máximo de 2 años. Además, los administradores y moderadores podrían realizar una elección única, en caso de que no estuvieran seguros de a quién elegir y quisieran la voz de la comunidad.
[/quote]
Por supuesto, no me opongo a la idea. Creo que podría ser muy útil si se implementa con las opciones adecuadas, como las que mencioné anteriormente. Sin embargo, usando nuevamente los foros de Gimkit como ejemplo, algunas de las personas que son populares actualmente reciben una gran cantidad de advertencias, o incluso son suspendidas por un corto período de tiempo en este momento. Permitir que un concurso de popularidad controle la moderación en un foro de cualquier manera, por lo que he visto en el foro de Gimkit, resultaría rápidamente en algo malo. Hay algunos candidatos que son muy populares y que probablemente serían buenos moderadores, pero más allá de ellos, quizás 1 o 2, rápidamente se convierte en un mar de personas que son populares pero no siempre sensatas, buenos modelos a seguir, etc.
Parece que esta idea está diseñada para complementar la falta de moderación proporcionada por quienes administran el foro, por lo que la idea de que puedan revisar y degradar a las personas que obtienen el puesto pero no son buenas probablemente será un proceso muy lento. Con el foro de Gimkit, los problemas de moderación no se resolvieron a veces durante semanas, por lo que si el propietario del foro (josh) implementara esta idea, parece razonable que esperara que funcionara sin necesidad de revisarla. Si el personal no revisa con frecuencia, el sistema podría producir un mal moderador que perturbe el foro durante semanas.
Nuevamente, me gusta la idea. Simplemente no debería fomentarse como una opción predeterminada, y debería tener un buen conjunto de controles detrás, para que, como dijiste, otros foros que son diferentes puedan usar esta función.
Si alguien realmente quisiera hacer esto,
simplemente podría usar una encuesta. Y promover a los ganadores. No necesitas plugins ni software.
No todo el mundo quiere esta actualización. Simplemente haz una encuesta y usa la función de encuesta integrada en el foro.
Solo para mostrarte, el foro de IO games hizo esto. Funcionó sorprendentemente bien, pero necesitas promover manualmente a los miembros habituales a líderes.
https://iogames.forum/t/tl4-election-september-2024/23964?u=twofoursixeight
La razón por la que debería hacerse de esta manera es por simplicidad. El propietario o los administradores del foro pueden publicar un tema como el anterior y, cuando terminen, simplemente pueden promoverlos a líderes. No se requiere software adicional.
Como dije, en foros preexistentes, esto no estaría activo automáticamente. Además, se me ocurrió una solución rápida para ayudar con estos problemas;
Para limitar a los malos líderes, ya mencioné que solo el personal/tl4/moderador/administrador nominado y los usuarios regulares, cada uno de los cuales debería tener buen comportamiento la mayor parte del tiempo, serían agregados a la encuesta. Además, tendrían que dar una razón por la que deberían ser elegidos para el “cargo”, actualizada en su biografía, donde se encuentra si la función está activada (los datos se guardarán si se apaga y se vuelve a encender). Además, un gran número de señales de la comunidad podría alertar a los otros moderadores/administradores. Aunque esto no resolvería completamente tu problema, podría disminuir su efecto. En general, depende de la madurez y la esencia del foro.
Como dije antes, solo estaría activado por defecto en los foros CREADOS NUEVAMENTE. Aparecerá una ventana emergente y les preguntará si desean deshabilitarlo, brindando información sobre lo que hace, pros (moderación más fácil, voz de la comunidad, etc.) y contras (personal potencialmente inmaduro). Esto también se podría desactivar fácilmente en el control de administración.
Mencionaste reglas, y estoy de acuerdo, porque la moderación conlleva mucha responsabilidad. Podría, potencialmente, consumir la vida de alguien. [1] Si no eres digno de ser moderador, podrías renunciar. Además, las reglas también podrían usarse en votaciones, moderación, creación, etc. Quizás condiciones de señal personalizadas para tl4; si la configuración está activada, si un tl4 recibe suficientes señales (fueron señalados), la moderación sería notificada (marcada como urgente) y si consideran que el tl4 no es digno, lo degradarían.
Con las señales de la comunidad, tal vez podrían ser reintroducidas por la moderación (¿quizás tl4s? Círculo redondo, diría yo, pero no estoy seguro de todas sus capacidades.) Quizás se aplique un conjunto especial de reglas, que si señalas a jugadores sin motivo demasiadas veces [2], serás descalificado automáticamente, desalentando los concursos de popularidad.
@twofoursixeight, esto no sería útil para algunas de las personas que se beneficiarían de esto. Ya sea mala moderación o que crear encuestas no sea fácil, un sistema incorporado y personalizable que se pueda activar y desactivar si es necesario sería la mejor opción en general. Como en el caso de @idontexist; Tenían mala moderación y querían esta función que la moderación pudiera simplemente activar y solucionar todos sus problemas. Y tú, solo porque TÚ tienes tu problema resuelto no significa que otros no tengan el mismo problema que tú tenías originalmente.
Y siempre está esto:
Hasta donde sé, esto no ha sido desmentido oficialmente (o en absoluto) por Discourse, por lo que siempre existe la posibilidad…
Para @Heliosurge:
¿Qué tal un algoritmo de selección? Esto se usa en muchos sistemas profesionales:
Paso 1: Filtrado Inicial
Recuperar una lista de candidatos potenciales que hayan expresado interés en el puesto de Mod de Categoría o TL4.
Aplicar filtros básicos para excluir a los usuarios que:
Aplicar un filtro que permita unirse a no-regulares si han demostrado un liderazgo sobresaliente, como, pero no limitado a:
Paso 2: Análisis de Interacción
Paso 3: Revisión de Señales
Paso 4: Historial de Suspensiones y Silenciamientos
Paso 5: Motivación y Disponibilidad del Candidato
Paso 6: Acuerdo de Confidencialidad
No estoy seguro de este:
Paso 7: Evaluación Final y Selección
Monitoreo Post-Elección
Ajuste y Refinamiento del Algoritmo
Al implementar este algoritmo de selección, puede aumentar las posibilidades de seleccionar candidatos calificados y adecuados para los puestos de Mod de Categoría y TL4, al tiempo que minimiza el riesgo de elegir personas que puedan comprometer la comunidad o los valores del sitio.
En cuanto a otros desafíos que sugeriste;
Si debe ser así, entonces estaría desactivado automáticamente para todos los foros, pero la ventana emergente aún aparecería preguntándoles si desean activarlo.
En cuanto a tu otra parte, no estoy seguro de que sea una característica principal o efectiva para la promoción. Además, sigue siendo un plugin y muchos foros no introducen muchos plugins, lo que anula parte de su propósito.
La IA puede aplicar filtros comunes que serían efectivos. Utilizaría tanto estadísticas como razonamiento para continuar.
La IA, hasta donde sé, no cuesta dinero, solo tiempo y memoria, tanto para probar, codificar, ejecutar, etc.
Podrían ser realizados por el personal completo, pero sería más difícil y consumiría más tiempo. La IA sería el mejor contendiente y daría más tiempo al personal para moderar y completar otras tareas, dejando tiempo libre porque los miembros del personal en línea también tienen vida. A diferencia de la IA.
Tampoco estaba seguro sobre el acuerdo porque hay opiniones contradictorias y trato de mantenerme lo más imparcial posible al recopilar información de apoyo. Habría un contrato más simple; Mal → Degradado
Además, la IA moderna se comporta muy bien si se entrena bien, y también es inteligente, por lo que podría manejar los datos bien sin mentir. Para muchas IA, ese es su propósito principal.
Finalmente, esta es una configuración que se puede activar y desactivar fácilmente, por lo que, en última instancia, sería la elección del Administrador, para que puedan usar esta función o no. Simplemente abre una solución conveniente, efectiva y amigable con la comunidad para los problemas de tl4, y también le da a la comunidad una voz en la moderación.
El administrador principal del personal y los moderadores completos no serían elegidos por votación. La opción opcional propuesta es para los moderadores de categoría y TL4. Se acordó que los candidatos necesitarían ser examinados y tener condiciones para calificar como candidato. Si un submoderador elegido se sale de línea, el personal principal del sitio tendría que lidiar con ello.
Un candidato propuesto necesitaría ser examinado. ¿Cómo interactúan? ¿Han tenido advertencias en su contra? Si es así, ¿fueron menores o mayores? ¿Han sido silenciados y/o suspendidos? ¿Quieren el puesto si son elegidos?
Se necesita mucha afinación e implementación en el proceso de cualquier sitio. Si se tiene cuidado, puede mejorar la participación o, si no, puede obstaculizar una comunidad.
Los moderadores completos tienen habilidades que ningún miembro de la comunidad debería tener sin la debida investigación y acuerdos de confidencialidad.
No, ni siquiera en foros nuevos esto podría ser estándar. Necesitaría ser una característica opcional, ya sea un plugin, un componente de tema o parte del núcleo.
El equipo del personal del sitio necesita tener control total sobre las características opcionales.
Echa un vistazo al plugin Topic Voting. Se podría crear una categoría para este propósito y hacerla accesible cuando sea necesario. Luego, cada candidato podría hacer campaña en su tema y los usuarios podrían votar en el tema del candidato.
En su mayor parte, describes un procedimiento propuesto.
Todo el equipo del sitio tendría que hacer un trabajo manual. Esto podría mejorarse un poco utilizando una consulta del plugin Data Explorer.
Un buen equipo de sitio tendrá una buena idea/conciencia de su base de usuarios.
No todo el mundo querrá gastar en usar IA. Aunque se está volviendo más asequible.
Los pasos 3, 4 y 5 pueden ser evaluados por todo el personal y, nuevamente, se puede usar una consulta de explorador de datos para facilitar el proceso. Dado que estas “elecciones” no deberían ser tan frecuentes. Algo de trabajo humano es ideal.
Esto es más una necesidad para todo el personal, ya que, dependiendo de la configuración, tienen acceso a cosas como direcciones de correo electrónico.
TL4 y Cat Mods no tienen ese nivel de acceso, por lo que bastaría un acuerdo más simple. Si un submoderador elegido incumple su deber o abusa del privilegio, el equipo del sitio debe determinar una acción correctiva. Ya sea revocando los privilegios de submoderador y posiblemente silenciando o prohibiendo.
De manera similar a cualquier empresa, quienes ocupan puestos más altos deben monitorear y evaluar. Las consultas de datos con participación humana son lo mejor. De lo contrario, te encontrarás en situaciones inhumanas como las de FB y, en menor medida, Reddit.
En última instancia, tu idea propuesta sobre cómo hacerlo sería un procedimiento sugerido. El equipo central del sitio tiene que determinar si utiliza la idea de elegir submoderadores y cómo funcionará, y ajustar el proceso a lo largo del tiempo.
Muchos sitios no utilizarán este tipo de concepto por una variedad de razones, como dijo Jag. Por ejemplo, una empresa que lo utiliza para empleados y clientes querrá que su empresa nombre personas para los roles. Por lo tanto, esto no puede ser un estándar impuesto a los clientes de Discourse Meta.
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.)
Creo que es posible que necesites releer lo que publiqué. Tu idea solo puede ser una opción y el uso de IA una elección debido al costo y otros factores.
Discourse es una plataforma abierta en la que cualquier idea puede implementarse con trabajo. Esta idea no puede ser un valor predeterminado forzado ni tampoco. Tus procedimientos propuestos solo pueden sugerirse. Cada comunidad necesita tomar decisiones sobre el uso potencial de las funciones por sí misma.
La interacción humana directa con este tipo de cosas es una buena práctica, incluso si se utiliza IA.
En esencia, una votación no funcionaría porque no alteraría directamente el nivel de confianza del individuo, lo que requeriría moderación y anularía la mayor parte del propósito.
Además, es tan simple como una cosa. Si no desea celebrar elecciones o desea que no cambie directamente el estado, o desea la aprobación humana directa sin, en lugar de junto con, el algoritmo, simplemente active o personalice la elección en su configuración de administrador.
Esto resolvería todos los problemas que ha presentado, aunque se mencionó en la publicación original.
Además, si todavía, por alguna razón, está en contra de la elección, esta sigue siendo una idea y aún no ha sido aprobada por el personal de Discourse.