Ho menzionato questo nella mia idea:
Sarebbe crudele, senza accesso al PM o al sondaggio al suo interno, non potrebbero votare.
Inoltre, discourse potrebbe limitarlo. Se vengono creati troppi account in troppo poco tempo, potrebbe disabilitare la creazione di account per alcuni minuti-ore, a seconda della gravità.
A seconda della community, questo potrebbe funzionare.
Questo plugin è rotto. Tuttavia, è stato progettato per fare sondaggi elettorali. Immagino che se qualcuno volesse sponsorizzare il funzionamento/aggiornamento di questo plugin, potrebbe essere una buona base.
Tuttavia, invece di un utente TL4, potrebbe essere utilizzato per i moderatori di categoria. Da una rapida lettura, questo plugin non aggiorna un utente, quindi sarebbe necessario un lavoro manuale. Tuttavia, potresti anche utilizzare i sondaggi integrati nel core.
Beh, questa è una visione molto limitata. Ci sono molti tipi di forum e dipende da come l’organo direttivo del sito sceglie di gestire il proprio forum. 
Davvero? O realistica? Quindi un amministratore con poteri illimitati è come un presidente? E il modo in cui i moderatori ottengono i poteri e sono controllati dagli amministratori
Se pensi ai forum come a un paese, allora sì, possiamo presumere che gli amministratori siano il presidente, i moderatori il vicepresidente e tutti gli altri persone normali che seguono la legge.
Nel caso degli Stati Uniti, i tl4 sarebbero giudici supremi, i category moderator sarebbero governatori statali e i tl3 sarebbero sindaci. Ma se gli admin fossero coinvolti nell’essere presidenti, allora anche se [Gli Admin] avessero un potere illimitato, ci sarebbero ancora modi in cui la comunità potrebbe essere una democrazia sia al proprio interno che all’esterno.
Inoltre, i buoni leader danno una scelta al popolo. A nessuno piacciono i totalitari!
Beh, un forum non è pensato per essere una democrazia. Ognuno ha uno scopo, e questo non significa che gli interessi dei membri siano allineati allo scopo del forum. Inoltre, se qualcuno volesse davvero farlo, creerebbe un sondaggio fissato in alto da solo. Non sarebbe una cosa molto utile da fare.
Con questo intendo una funzionalità di discussione, non un plugin. i plugin toglierebbero parte dello scopo, poiché dovrebbero essere installati manualmente da un amministratore.
Dipende dal forum stesso.
L’idea della proposta dell’OP non cambia il team principale di un forum (amministratore e moderatori). Si tratta di un sottogruppo di facilitatori con alcune capacità di moderazione.
Mi piace questa idea e penso che risolva problemi simili a quelli che twofoursixeight ha menzionato nell’esempio dei moduli Gimkit Creative. Tuttavia, penso che possa anche trasformarsi in un concorso di popolarità che non produrrà buoni risultati. Nell’esempio dei forum Gimkit Creative, se fosse stata implementata una soluzione simile, le prime scelte sarebbero state probabilmente buoni moderatori, ma oltre a questo i principali candidati molto probabilmente non avrebbero gestito bene la posizione.
Sebbene consentire solo ai membri TL2 di votare aiuti un po’, sui forum Gimkit (l’unico forum discourse con cui ho esperienza) molti TL2 preferiscono persone popolari piuttosto che buoni moderatori. Può anche diventare un problema se c’è una mancanza di buoni candidati, poiché un candidato vincerà e potrebbe non essere adatto.
Se qualcosa del genere venisse aggiunto, ci dovrebbero essere (secondo me) opzioni per impostare la frequenza con cui si verificano le elezioni, o per condurre un’elezione una tantum. Non penso che sia qualcosa di disperatamente necessario, ma potrebbe certamente essere utile. Dovrebbe anche essere sicuramente disabilitato per impostazione predefinita, ovunque.
Capisco perché potresti pensarlo.
Discourse ha un pubblico eterogeneo, il che significa che altri forum diversi potrebbero utilizzare questa funzionalità, e anche se alcune persone sui Forum di Gimkit non sarebbero adatte a un tl4, altre lo sarebbero, e sarebbero queste le persone che verrebbero aggiunte.
Se venisse scelta una persona non abbastanza responsabile, un moderatore potrebbe intervenire, una soluzione facile. Inoltre, le persone responsabili e popolari di solito vanno di pari passo, poiché essere bravi in una certa materia può portare a tale popolarità.
I concorsi di popolarità non sarebbero una buona cosa, il che potrebbe comportare regole riguardanti l’assenza di tali concorsi. Inoltre, alcuni concorsi di popolarità potrebbero essere buoni, promuovendo un buon comportamento.
Penso che i nuovi forum dopo un aggiornamento che include questa funzionalità dovrebbero, di fatto, averla attiva per impostazione predefinita, ma come ho affermato in precedenza, apparirebbe un chiaro pop-up quando accedono per la prima volta al loro forum, chiedendo loro se desiderano modificare l’impostazione su disattivata e includendo alcune informazioni in merito.
Inoltre, ho già menzionato questo fattore:
Naturalmente, non mi oppongo all’idea. Penso che potrebbe essere molto utile se implementata con le opzioni appropriate, come ho elencato sopra. Tuttavia, prendendo ancora una volta i forum di Gimkit come esempio, alcune delle persone attualmente popolari ricevono un gran numero di segnalazioni, o vengono persino sospese per un breve periodo di tempo al momento. Permettere a un concorso di popolarità di controllare la moderazione su un forum in qualsiasi modo, per quanto ho visto sul forum di Gimkit, si trasformerebbe rapidamente in qualcosa di negativo. Ci sono alcuni candidati molto popolari che probabilmente farebbero buoni moderatori, ma al di là di questi forse 1-2, si trasforma rapidamente in un mare di persone che sono popolari ma non sempre equilibrate, buoni modelli di ruolo, ecc.
Sembra che questa idea sia progettata per integrare una mancanza di moderazione fornita da coloro che gestiscono il forum, quindi l’idea che possano controllare e retrocedere le persone che ottengono la posizione ma non sono brave sarà molto probabilmente un processo molto lento. Con il forum di Gimkit, i problemi di moderazione rimanevano irrisolti per settimane, quindi se il proprietario del forum (josh) dovesse implementare questa idea, sembra ragionevole che si aspetti che funzioni senza doverla controllare. Se lo staff non controlla frequentemente, il sistema potrebbe produrre un cattivo moderatore che disturba il forum per settimane.
Ancora una volta, mi piace l’idea. Semplicemente non dovrebbe essere incoraggiata come opzione predefinita, e dovrebbe avere un buon set di controlli dietro di sé, in modo che, come hai detto, altri forum che sono diversi possano utilizzare questa funzionalità.
Quindi, se qualcuno volesse davvero farlo,
potrebbe semplicemente usare un sondaggio. E promuovere i vincitori. Non hai bisogno di plugin o software.
Non tutti vogliono questo aggiornamento. Basta creare un sondaggio e utilizzare la funzione di sondaggio integrata nel forum.
Solo per mostrartelo, il forum di IO games ha fatto questo. Ha funzionato sorprendentemente bene, ma devi promuovere manualmente i regolari a leader.
https://iogames.forum/t/tl4-election-september-2024/23964?u=twofoursixeight
Il motivo per cui dovrebbe essere fatto in questo modo è per semplicità. Il proprietario o gli amministratori del forum possono pubblicare un argomento come quello sopra e, una volta fatto, possono semplicemente promuoverli a leader. Nessun software aggiuntivo richiesto.
Come ho detto, sui forum preesistenti, questa opzione non sarebbe attiva automaticamente. Inoltre, ho appena pensato a una soluzione rapida per aiutare con questi problemi;
Per limitare i cattivi leader, ho già menzionato che solo utenti nominati dallo staff/tl4/moderatore/admin e utenti regolari, ognuno dei quali dovrebbe comportarsi bene la maggior parte del tempo, verrebbero aggiunti al sondaggio. Inoltre, dovrebbero fornire una motivazione per cui dovrebbero essere votati per l’“ufficio”, aggiornata nella loro biografia, dove si trova se la funzione è attiva (i dati verranno salvati se disattivata e riattivata). Inoltre, un gran numero di segnalazioni della community potrebbe allertare gli altri moderatori/admin. Sebbene ciò non risolva completamente il tuo problema, potrebbe ridurne l’effetto. Nel complesso, dipende dalla maturità e dall’essenza del forum.
Come ho detto prima, sarebbe attivo per impostazione predefinita solo sui forum NUOVAMENTE creati. Apparirà un popup e chiederà loro se desiderano disattivarla, fornendo informazioni su cosa fa: pro (moderazione più facile, voce della community, ecc.) e contro (staff potenzialmente immaturo). Questo sarebbe anche facilmente disattivabile nel controllo admin.
Hai detto regole, e sono d’accordo, perché la moderazione comporta molte responsabilità. Potrebbe, potenzialmente, occupare la vita di una persona. [1] Se non sei degno di essere un moderatore, potresti rinunciare. Inoltre, le regole potrebbero anche essere utilizzate per votare, moderare, creare, ecc. Forse condizioni di segnalazione personalizzate per i tl4; se l’impostazione è attiva, se un tl4 riceve abbastanza segnalazioni (sono stati segnalati), la moderazione verrebbe notificata (contrassegnata come urgente) e se ritenessero il tl4 indegno, lo retrocederebbero.
Con le segnalazioni della community, forse potrebbero essere ripristinate dalla moderazione (forse i tl4? Cerchio perfetto, direi, ma non sono sicuro di tutte le loro capacità.) Forse si applica un set speciale di regole, che se segnali i giocatori senza motivo troppe volte [2], vieni automaticamente squalificato, scoraggiando i concorsi di popolarità.
@twofoursixeight, Questo non sarebbe utile per alcune delle persone che ne trarrebbero beneficio. O una cattiva moderazione, o la creazione di sondaggi non è facile, un sistema integrato e personalizzabile che può essere attivato e disattivato se necessario sarebbe l’opzione migliore nel complesso. Come nel caso di @idontexist; Avevano una cattiva moderazione e volevano questa funzione che la moderazione potesse semplicemente attivare e risolvere tutti i loro problemi. E tu, solo perché TU hai risolto il tuo problema non significa che gli altri non abbiano lo stesso problema che avevi originariamente.
E c’è sempre questo:
Per quanto ne so, questo non è stato ufficialmente (o affatto) smentito da Discourse, quindi c’è sempre la possibilità…
Per @Heliosurge:
Che ne dici di un algoritmo di vaglio? Questo viene utilizzato in molti sistemi professionali:
Passaggio 1: Filtraggio iniziale
Recupera un elenco di potenziali candidati che hanno espresso interesse per la posizione di Category Mod o TL4.
Applica filtri di base per escludere gli utenti che:
Applica un filtro che consenta ai non regolari di partecipare se hanno dimostrato una leadership eccezionale, come, ma non solo:
Passaggio 2: Analisi delle interazioni
Passaggio 3: Revisione delle segnalazioni
Passaggio 4: Cronologia delle sospensioni e dei silenziamenti
Passaggio 5: Motivazione e disponibilità del candidato
Passaggio 6: Accordo di riservatezza
Non sono sicuro di questo:
Passaggio 7: Valutazione finale e selezione
Monitoraggio post-elezione
Regolazione e affinamento dell’algoritmo
Implementando questo algoritmo di vaglio, puoi aumentare le possibilità di selezionare candidati qualificati e idonei per le posizioni di Category Mod e TL4, riducendo al minimo il rischio di eleggere individui che potrebbero compromettere la community o i valori del sito.
Per quanto riguarda le altre sfide che hai suggerito;
Se deve essere così, allora sarà disattivato automaticamente per tutti i forum, ma apparirà comunque il popup chiedendo se desiderano attivarlo.
Per quanto riguarda la tua altra parte, non sono sicuro che sarebbe sia una funzionalità principale che efficace per la promozione. Inoltre, è ancora un plugin e molti forum non introducono molti plugin, vanificando parte del suo scopo.
L’IA può applicare filtri comuni che sarebbero efficaci. Utilizzerebbe sia statistiche che ragionamenti per continuare.
L’IA, per quanto ne so, non costa denaro, solo tempo e memoria, sia per testare, codificare, eseguire, ecc.
Potrebbero essere realizzati dall’intero staff, ma sarebbe più difficile e richiederebbe più tempo. L’IA sarebbe il miglior contendente e darebbe allo staff più tempo per moderare e completare altre attività, lasciando tempo libero perché i membri dello staff online hanno anche una vita. A differenza dell’IA.
Inoltre, non ero sicuro dell’accordo perché ci sono opinioni contrastanti e cerco di rimanere il più imparziale possibile mentre raccolgo informazioni di supporto. Ci sarebbe un contratto più semplice; Cattivo → Retrocesso
Inoltre, l’IA moderna si comporta molto bene se addestrata bene, ed è anche intelligente, quindi sarebbe in grado di gestire bene i dati senza mentire. Per molte IA, questo è il loro intero scopo.
Infine, questa è un’impostazione che può essere facilmente attivata e disattivata, quindi, in definitiva, sarebbe una scelta dell’Admin, in modo che possano utilizzare o meno questa funzionalità. Apre semplicemente una soluzione conveniente, efficace e amichevole per la community ai problemi dei tl4, e dà anche alla community una voce nella moderazione.
Lo staff principale amministratore e i moderatori completi non sarebbero eletti. L’opzione opzionale proposta è per i moderatori di categoria e TL4. Concordato che i candidati devono essere vagliati e avere condizioni per qualificarsi come candidati. Se un sottomodellatore eletto esce dalle righe, lo staff principale del sito dovrà occuparsene.
Un candidato proposto dovrebbe essere esaminato. Come interagisce, ci sono state segnalazioni contro di lui? Se sì, erano minori o maggiori? È stato messo a tacere e/o sospeso. Vuole la posizione se eletto?
Molta messa a punto deve essere fatta e implementata nel processo di qualsiasi sito. Se si presta attenzione, può migliorare il coinvolgimento o, in caso contrario, ostacolare una comunità.
I moderatori completi hanno abilità che nessun membro della comunità dovrebbe avere senza un’adeguata verifica e accordi di riservatezza in atto.
No, nemmeno i nuovi forum potrebbero avere questa funzionalità standard. Sarebbe necessario che fosse una funzionalità opzionale, che si tratti di un plugin, di un componente del tema o di parte del core.
Il team dello staff del sito deve avere il pieno controllo delle funzionalità opzionali.
Dai un’occhiata al plugin Topic Voting. Una categoria creata a questo scopo potrebbe essere resa accessibile quando necessario. Quindi ogni candidato potrebbe fare campagna nel proprio argomento e gli utenti potrebbero votare sull’argomento del candidato.
Per la maggior parte, stai descrivendo una procedura proposta
L’intero team del sito dovrebbe svolgere del lavoro manuale. Questo potrebbe essere migliorato utilizzando una query del plugin Data Explorer.
Un buon team del sito avrà una buona percezione/consapevolezza della propria base di utenti.
Non tutti vorranno spendere per usare l’IA. Anche se sta diventando più conveniente.
I passi 3, 4 e 5 possono essere valutati dall’intero staff e, ancora una volta, si può utilizzare una query del data explorer per facilitare il processo. Poiché queste “elezioni” non dovrebbero essere così frequenti. Un po’ di lavoro umano è ideale.
Questo è più un bisogno per l’intero staff poiché, a seconda delle impostazioni, hanno accesso a cose come gli indirizzi email.
TL4 e Cat Mods non hanno quel livello di accesso, quindi un accordo più semplice andrebbe bene. Se un sub mod eletto viene meno al suo dovere o abusa del privilegio, il team del sito deve determinare un’azione correttiva. Che si tratti di revocare i privilegi di sub mod e possibilmente di silenziare o bannare.
Simile a qualsiasi azienda, coloro che ricoprono posizioni più elevate devono monitorare e valutare. Indagini sui dati con coinvolgimento umano sono le migliori. Altrimenti si finisce nelle situazioni disumane di FB e, in misura minore, di Reddit.
In definitiva, la tua idea proposta su come fare. Sarebbe una procedura suggerita. Il team principale del sito deve determinare se utilizzare l’idea di eleggere sub mod e come far funzionare il processo e perfezionarlo nel tempo.
Molti siti non utilizzeranno questo tipo di concetto per una varietà di ragioni, come ha detto Jag. Ad esempio, un’azienda che lo utilizza per dipendenti e clienti vorrà che la propria azienda nomini persone ai ruoli. Quindi questo non può essere uno standard imposto ai clienti di 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.)
Penso che tu possa aver bisogno di rileggere quello che ho postato. La tua idea può essere solo un’opzione e l’uso dell’IA una scelta dovuta a costi e altri fattori.
Discourse è una piattaforma aperta in cui qualsiasi idea può essere implementata con lavoro. Questa idea non può essere un’impostazione predefinita forzata né può esserlo. Le tue procedure proposte possono solo essere suggerite. Ogni community deve prendere decisioni sull’uso potenziale delle funzionalità per sé stessa.
L’interazione umana diretta con questo tipo di cose è una best practice anche se si utilizza l’IA.
Inoltre, un voto non funzionerebbe perché non altererebbe direttamente il livello di fiducia dell’individuo, richiedendo moderazione e vanificando gran parte dello scopo.
Inoltre, è semplice. Se non desideri tenere elezioni o desideri che non cambi direttamente lo stato, o desideri l’approvazione umana diretta senza, piuttosto che insieme, l’algoritmo, allora semplicemente attiva o personalizza l’elezione nelle tue impostazioni di amministrazione.
Questo risolverebbe tutti i problemi presentati, sebbene sia stato affermato nel post originale.
Inoltre, se sei ancora, per qualche motivo, contrario all’elezione, questa è ancora un’idea e non è ancora stata approvata dallo staff di Discourse.