Eu mencionei isso na minha ideia:
Isso seria cruel, sem acesso à MP ou à enquete dentro dela, eles não poderiam votar.
Além disso, o Discourse poderia limitar isso. Se muitas contas forem criadas em um curto período de tempo, isso poderia desabilitar a criação de contas por alguns minutos a horas, dependendo da gravidade.
Dependendo da comunidade, isso pode funcionar.
Este plugin está quebrado. No entanto, ele foi projetado para fazer enquetes de eleições. Imagino que se alguém quisesse patrocinar para que isso ficasse funcional/atualizado, poderia ser uma boa base.
Embora, em vez de talvez um usuário TL4, pudesse ser usado para moderadores de categoria. Pela leitura rápida, este plugin não atualiza um usuário, então algum trabalho manual precisaria ser feito. Embora você também pudesse usar as enquetes integradas do core.
Bem, essa é uma visão muito limitada. Existem muitos tipos de fóruns e tudo se resume a como o corpo operacional do site escolhe administrar seu fórum. 
É mesmo? Ou realista? Então um administrador com poderes ilimitados é como um presidente? E a forma como os moderadores obtêm poderes e são controlados pelos administradores
Se você pensar nos fóruns como um país, então sim, podemos assumir que os administradores são o presidente, os moderadores são o vice-presidente e todos os outros são apenas pessoas normais seguindo a lei.
No caso dos Estados Unidos, os tl4 seriam juízes supremos, os moderadores de categoria seriam governadores estaduais e os tl3 seriam prefeitos. Mas se os administradores estiverem envolvidos em ser um presidente, então, mesmo que eles [os Administradores] tenham poder ilimitado, ainda existem maneiras de a comunidade ser uma democracia tanto internamente quanto externamente.
Além disso, bons líderes dão escolha ao povo. Ninguém gosta de um totalitário!
Bem, um fórum não é feito para ser uma democracia. Cada um tem um propósito, e isso não significa que os interesses dos membros estejam alinhados com o propósito do fórum. Além disso, se alguém realmente quisesse fazer isso, criaria uma enquete fixada. Não seria algo muito útil de se fazer.
Com isso, quero dizer um recurso de discurso, não um plugin. plugins tirariam parte do propósito, pois teriam que ser instalados manualmente por um administrador.
Isso depende do próprio fórum.
A ideia da proposta do OP não muda a equipe principal de um fórum (Admin e Moderadores). Trata-se de um subgrupo de facilitadores com algumas habilidades de moderação.
Eu gosto dessa ideia e acho que ela corrige problemas semelhantes aos que twofoursixeight mencionou no exemplo dos formulários do GImkit Creative. No entanto, acho que também pode se transformar em um concurso de popularidade que não produzirá bons resultados. No exemplo dos fóruns do Gimkit Creative, se uma solução como essa tivesse sido implementada, as primeiras escolhas provavelmente teriam sido bons moderadores, mas depois disso os principais candidatos provavelmente não teriam lidado bem com a posição.
Embora permitir apenas que membros TL2 votem ajude um pouco, nos fóruns do Gimkit (o único fórum discourse com o qual tenho experiência) muitos TL2s preferem pessoas populares em vez de bons moderadores. Também pode se tornar um problema se houver uma falta de bons candidatos, pois um candidato vencerá e pode não ser uma boa opção.
Se algo como isso fosse adicionado, (na minha opinião) deveria haver opções para definir a frequência com que as eleições ocorrem, ou para realizar uma eleição única. Não acho que isso seja algo desesperadamente necessário, mas certamente poderia ser útil. Isso também deveria definitivamente ser desativado por padrão, em todos os lugares.
Eu entendo por que você pode pensar isso.
O Discourse tem um público variado, o que significa que outros fóruns diferentes poderiam usar esse recurso, e mesmo que algumas pessoas nos Fóruns Gimkit não fossem adequadas para um tl4, outras seriam, e seriam essas que seriam adicionadas.
Se uma pessoa que não é responsável o suficiente for escolhida, um moderador poderia se envolver, uma solução fácil. Além disso, pessoas responsáveis e populares geralmente vêm juntas, pois ser bom em um determinado assunto pode levar a tal popularidade.
Concursos de popularidade não seriam uma boa coisa, o que poderia resultar em regras sobre a ausência de tais concursos. Além disso, alguns concursos de popularidade poderiam ser bons, promovendo bom comportamento.
Acho que novos fóruns após uma atualização que inclua esse recurso deveriam, de fato, tê-lo ativado por padrão, mas como afirmei anteriormente, um pop-up óbvio apareceria quando eles fizessem login em seu fórum pela primeira vez, perguntando se eles gostariam de alterar a configuração para desativado e incluindo algumas informações sobre o assunto.
Além disso, já mencionei esse fator:
Claro, não sou contra a ideia. Acho que poderia ser muito útil se implementado com as opções adequadas, como listei acima. No entanto, novamente usando os fóruns do Gimkit como exemplo, algumas das pessoas que são populares atualmente recebem um grande número de sinalizações, ou são até suspensas por um curto período de tempo no momento. Permitir que um concurso de popularidade controle a moderação em um fórum de qualquer forma, pelo que vi no fórum do Gimkit, rapidamente se tornaria ruim. Existem alguns candidatos que são muito populares e provavelmente seriam bons moderadores, mas além desses talvez 1-2, rapidamente se torna um mar de pessoas que são populares, mas nem sempre equilibradas, bons exemplos, etc.
Parece que essa ideia foi projetada para complementar a falta de moderação fornecida por aqueles que administram o fórum, então a ideia de que eles podem verificar e rebaixar pessoas que obtêm a posição, mas não são boas, provavelmente será um processo muito lento. Com o fórum do Gimkit, os problemas de moderação ficavam sem solução por semanas, então se o proprietário do fórum (josh) implementasse essa ideia, parece razoável que ele esperasse que funcionasse sem precisar verificar. Se a equipe não verificar com frequência, o sistema pode produzir um mau moderador que perturba o fórum por semanas.
Novamente, gosto da ideia. Apenas não deve ser encorajada como uma opção padrão, e deve ter um bom conjunto de controles por trás dela, para que, como você disse, outros fóruns que são diferentes possam usar esse recurso.
Se alguém realmente quisesse fazer isso,
poderia simplesmente usar uma enquete. E promover os vencedores. Você não precisa de plugins ou softwares.
Nem todo mundo quer essa atualização. Basta fazer uma enquete e usar o recurso de enquete integrado ao fórum.
Só para mostrar a vocês, o fórum do IO games fez isso. Funcionou surpreendentemente bem, mas você precisa promover manualmente os membros regulares para líderes.
https://iogames.forum/t/tl4-election-september-2024/23964?u=twofoursixeight
A razão pela qual isso deve ser feito dessa forma é pela simplicidade. O proprietário ou os administradores do fórum podem postar um tópico como o acima e, quando terminar, podem simplesmente promovê-los a líderes. Nenhum software extra é necessário.
Como eu disse, em fóruns pré-existentes, isso não estaria ativo automaticamente. Além disso, pensei em uma solução rápida para ajudar com esses problemas;
Para limitar maus líderes, já mencionei que apenas funcionários/tl4/moderador/administrador indicados e usuários regulares, cada um com bom comportamento na maior parte do tempo, seriam adicionados à votação. Além disso, eles teriam que dar um motivo pelo qual deveriam ser votados para o “cargo”, atualizado em seu perfil, onde está se o recurso estiver ativado (os dados serão salvos se desligados e ligados novamente). Além disso, um grande número de sinalizações da comunidade pode alertar os outros moderadores/administradores. Embora isso não resolva completamente seu problema, pode diminuir seu efeito. No geral, depende da maturidade e essência do fórum.
Como eu disse antes, estaria ativado por padrão apenas em fóruns NOVOS. Um pop-up aparecerá e perguntará se eles gostariam de desativá-lo, fornecendo informações sobre o que ele faz: prós (moderação mais fácil, voz da comunidade, etc.) e contras (equipe potencialmente imatura). Isso também seria facilmente desativado no controle de administração.
Você disse regras, e eu concordo, porque moderar vem com muita responsabilidade. Poderia, potencialmente, consumir a vida de alguém. [1] Se você não for digno de ser moderador, pode desistir. Além disso, regras também poderiam ser usadas em votações, moderação, criação, etc. Talvez condições de sinalização personalizadas para tl4s; se a configuração estiver ativada, se um tl4 receber sinalizações suficientes (eles foram sinalizados), a moderação seria notificada (marcada como urgente) e, se eles considerarem o tl4 indigno, eles o rebaixariam.
Com as sinalizações da comunidade, talvez elas pudessem ser reativadas pela moderação (talvez tl4s? Círculo completo, eu diria, mas não tenho certeza sobre todas as suas capacidades.) Talvez um conjunto especial de regras se aplique, que se você sinalizar jogadores sem motivo muitas vezes [2], você é automaticamente desqualificado, desencorajando concursos de popularidade.
@twofoursixeight, Isso não seria útil para algumas das pessoas que se beneficiariam disso. Ou má moderação, ou criar enquetes não é fácil, um sistema embutido e personalizável que pode ser ligado e desligado quando necessário seria a melhor opção no geral. Como no caso de @idontexist; Eles tiveram má moderação e queriam esse recurso que a moderação pudesse simplesmente ativar e resolver todos os seus problemas. E você, só porque VOCÊ teve seu problema resolvido não significa que outros não tenham o mesmo problema que você teve originalmente.
E sempre há isso:
Até onde eu sei, isso não foi oficialmente (ou de forma alguma) refutado pelo Discourse, então sempre há a possibilidade…
Para @Heliosurge:
Que tal um algoritmo de verificação? Isso é usado em muitos sistemas profissionais:
Etapa 1: Filtragem Inicial
Recuperar uma lista de candidatos potenciais que expressaram interesse na posição de Mod de Categoria ou TL4.
Aplicar filtros básicos para excluir usuários que:
Aplicar um filtro que permite que não-regulares participem se eles demonstraram liderança excepcional, como, mas não limitado a:
Etapa 2: Análise de Interação
Etapa 3: Revisão de Sinalizações
Etapa 4: Histórico de Suspensões e Silenciamentos
Etapa 5: Motivação e Disponibilidade do Candidato
Etapa 6: Acordo de Confidencialidade
Não tenho certeza sobre este:
Etapa 7: Avaliação Final e Seleção
Monitoramento Pós-Eleição
Ajuste e Refinamento do Algoritmo
Ao implementar este algoritmo de verificação, você pode aumentar as chances de selecionar candidatos qualificados e adequados para as posições de Mod de Categoria e TL4, minimizando o risco de eleger indivíduos que possam comprometer a comunidade ou os valores do site.
Quanto aos outros desafios que você sugeriu;
Se for o caso, então estaria desativado automaticamente para todos os fóruns, mas o pop-up ainda apareceria perguntando se eles gostariam de ativá-lo.
Quanto à sua outra parte, não tenho certeza se seria um recurso principal ou eficaz para promoção. Além disso, ainda é um plugin e muitos fóruns não introduzem muitos plugins, o que frustra parte do seu propósito.
A IA pode aplicar filtros comuns que seriam eficazes. Usaria tanto estatísticas quanto raciocínio para continuar.
A IA, até onde sei, não custa dinheiro, apenas tempo e memória, para testes, codificação, execução, etc.
Eles poderiam ser realizados pela equipe completa, mas seria mais difícil e demorado. A IA seria o melhor concorrente e daria mais tempo à equipe para moderar e concluir outras tarefas, deixando tempo livre porque os membros da equipe online também têm vida. Diferente da IA.
Também não tinha certeza sobre o acordo porque há opiniões conflitantes e tento permanecer o mais imparcial possível ao coletar informações de apoio. Haveria um contrato mais simples; Ruim → Rebaixado
Além disso, a IA moderna se comporta muito bem se treinada corretamente, e também é inteligente, então ela seria capaz de lidar bem com os dados sem mentir. Para muitas IAs, esse é todo o seu propósito.
Finalmente, esta é uma configuração que pode ser facilmente ativada e desativada, então, em última análise, seria a escolha do Administrador, para que eles pudessem usar ou não esse recurso. Ele apenas abre uma solução conveniente, eficaz e amigável para a comunidade para problemas de tl4, e também dá à comunidade uma voz na moderação.
A administração principal da Staff e os Moderadores plenos não seriam eleitos. A opção opcional proposta é para Moderadores de Categoria e TL4. Concordo que os candidatos precisam ser examinados e ter condições para se qualificar como candidato. Se um sub moderador eleito sair da linha, a equipe principal do site precisaria lidar com isso.
Um candidato proposto precisaria ser examinado. Como eles interagem, eles tiveram avisos contra eles? Se sim, foram menores ou maiores? Eles foram silenciados e/ou suspensos. Eles querem o cargo se eleitos?
Muita sintonia precisa ser feita e implementada no processo de qualquer site. Se for feito com cuidado, pode aumentar o engajamento ou, se não, pode prejudicar uma comunidade.
Moderadores plenos têm habilidades que nenhum membro da comunidade deveria ter sem a devida verificação e acordos de confidencialidade em vigor.
Não, nem mesmo em novos fóruns isso poderia ser padrão. Seria necessário ser um recurso opcional, seja um plugin, um componente de tema ou parte do núcleo.
A equipe de administração do site precisa ter controle total sobre recursos opcionais.
Confira o plugin Topic Voting. Uma categoria criada para esse fim poderia ser tornada acessível quando necessário. Então, cada candidato poderia fazer campanha em seu tópico e os usuários poderiam votar no tópico do candidato.
Na maior parte, você está descrevendo um procedimento proposto
A equipe completa do site precisaria fazer algum trabalho manual. Isso poderia ser aprimorado usando uma consulta do plugin Data Explorer.
Uma boa equipe de site terá uma boa noção/consciência de sua base de usuários.
Nem todo mundo vai querer gastar com o uso de IA. Embora esteja se tornando mais acessível.
As Etapas 3, 4 e 5 podem ser avaliadas por toda a equipe e, novamente, uma consulta do Data Explorer pode ajudar a facilitar o processo. Como essas “eleições” não devem ser tão frequentes. Um pouco de trabalho humano é ideal.
Isso é mais uma necessidade para a equipe completa, pois, dependendo das configurações, eles têm acesso a coisas como endereços de e-mail, por exemplo.
TL4 e Cat Mods não têm esse nível de acesso, então um acordo mais simples seria suficiente. Se um sub mod eleito falhar em seu dever ou abusar do privilégio, a equipe do site precisará determinar uma ação corretiva. Seja revogando os privilégios de sub mod e possivelmente silenciando ou banindo.
Semelhante a qualquer empresa, aqueles em posições mais altas precisam monitorar e avaliar. Consultas de dados com envolvimento humano são ideais. Caso contrário, você entra nas situações desumanas do FB e, em menor grau, do Reddit.
Em última análise, sua ideia proposta de como fazer. Seria um procedimento sugerido. A equipe principal do site tem que determinar se eles usam a ideia de eleger sub mods e como eles vão fazê-lo funcionar e ajustar o processo ao longo do caminho.
Muitos sites não usarão esse tipo de conceito por uma variedade de razões, como Jag disse. Um exemplo é uma empresa que o usa para funcionários e clientes que desejarão que sua empresa nomeie pessoas para os cargos. Portanto, isso não pode ser um padrão imposto aos clientes do 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.)
Acho que você pode precisar reler o que postei. Sua ideia só pode ser uma opção e o uso de IA uma escolha devido a custos e outros fatores.
O Discourse é uma plataforma aberta onde qualquer ideia pode ser implementada com trabalho. Esta ideia não pode ser um padrão forçado nem pode. Seus procedimentos propostos só podem ser sugeridos. Cada comunidade precisa tomar decisões sobre o uso potencial de recursos para si mesma.
A interação humana direta com este tipo de coisa é uma melhor prática, mesmo que se use IA.
Em essência, uma votação não funcionaria porque não alteraria diretamente o nível de confiança do indivíduo, exigindo moderação e derrotando a maior parte do propósito.
Além disso, é tão simples quanto uma coisa. Se você não quiser realizar eleições ou desejar que isso não altere diretamente o status, ou quiser aprovação humana direta sem, em vez de ao lado, o algoritmo, basta alternar ou personalizar a eleição em suas configurações de administrador.
Isso resolveria todos os seus problemas apresentados, embora tenha sido afirmado na postagem original.
Além disso, se você ainda, por algum motivo, for contra a eleição, esta ainda é uma ideia e ainda não foi aprovada pela equipe do Discourse.