我在我的想法中提到过：
这将是不公平的，如果他们无法访问私信或其中的投票，他们将无法投票。
另外，Discourse 也可以限制这一点。如果在短时间内创建了过多的账户，它可能会禁用账户创建几分钟到几小时，具体取决于严重程度。
4 个赞
这取决于社区，这个插件可能有效。
这个插件坏了。然而，它的设计初衷是用于选举投票。我想，如果有人想赞助使其功能正常/更新，这可能是一个很好的基础。
不过，与其让TL4用户来使用，不如让分类版主来使用。从快速阅读来看，这个插件不会自动升级用户，所以需要一些手动操作。不过，你也可以使用Discourse内置的投票功能。
4 个赞
嗯，这是一个非常狭隘的观点。论坛有很多种，这取决于网站运营机构如何管理他们的论坛。 
4 个赞
是吗？还是现实？那么一个拥有无限权力的管理员就像总统一样？还有管理员如何获得权力以及被管理员控制的方式
3 个赞
如果我们把论坛想象成一个国家，那么我们可以认为管理员是总统，版主是副总统，其他人都是遵守法律的普通人。
3 个赞
在美国，tl4s 将是最高法院大法官，类别版主将是州长，tl3s 将是市长。但如果管理员参与担任总统，那么即使他们（管理员）拥有无限的权力，社区仍然可以通过自身内外的方式实现民主。
同样，好的领导者会给予人民选择的权利。没有人喜欢极权主义者！
2 个赞
论坛并非旨在成为民主。每个论坛都有其目的，但这并不意味着成员的利益与论坛的目的相符。此外，如果有人真的想这样做，他们会自己创建一个置顶投票。这不会是什么非常有用的东西。
2 个赞
我的意思是这是一个内置功能，而不是一个插件。插件会削弱部分目的，因为它需要由管理员手动安装。
1 个赞
这取决于论坛本身。
发帖人的提议想法不会改变论坛的核心团队（管理员和版主）。它指的是一个拥有某些版主能力的辅助团队。
4 个赞
我喜欢这个想法，我认为它解决了 twofoursixeight 在 Gimkit Creative 表格示例中提到的类似问题。但是，我认为它也可能变成一场选拔不出好结果的“人气竞赛”。在 Gimkit Creative 表格的示例中，如果实施了类似这样的解决方案，前几名可能会是好的版主，但除此之外，主要的候选人很可能无法胜任这个职位。
虽然只允许 TL2 会员投票有所帮助，但在 Gimkit 表格（我唯一有经验的 discourse 表格）上，许多 TL2 更喜欢受欢迎的人，而不是好的版主。如果出现优秀候选人短缺的情况，这也会成为一个问题，因为只有一个候选人会获胜，而他们可能并不适合。
如果添加了类似的东西，（在我看来）应该有选项来设置选举发生的频率，或者进行一次性选举。我不认为这是“迫切需要”的东西，但它肯定会有用。它也应该在所有地方默认禁用。
5 个赞
我明白你为什么会这么想。
Discourse 的受众群体多样，这意味着其他不同的论坛也可以使用此功能，即使 Gimkit 论坛上有些人不适合成为 tl4，但其他人则适合，而这些人将被添加进来。
如果选了一个不够负责任的人，版主可以介入，这是一个简单的解决方法。同样，负责任的人和受欢迎的人通常是打包出现的，因为擅长某个科目可以带来这种受欢迎程度。
人气竞赛不是一件好事，这可能导致制定有关禁止此类竞赛的规则。同样，一些人气竞赛可能是有益的，可以促进良好行为。
我认为，在包含此功能的新论坛更新后，事实上应该默认启用它，但正如我之前所说，当他们第一次登录论坛时，会弹出一个明显的提示，询问他们是否希望将设置更改为关闭，并提供一些相关信息。
另外，我已经提到了这个因素：
3 个赞
当然，我不反对这个想法。我认为如果能提供我上面列出的适当选项来实现，它可能会非常有用。然而，同样以 Gimkit 论坛为例，一些目前很受欢迎的人会收到大量标记，甚至暂时被停职。根据我在 Gimkit 论坛上的观察，允许任何形式的受欢迎程度竞赛来控制论坛的审核，很快就会变坏。有几个非常受欢迎的候选人可能会成为好的版主，但除此之外，可能只有一两个人，很快就会出现一大批受欢迎但并不总是头脑冷静、行为榜样良好的人。
这个想法似乎是为了弥补论坛运行者提供的审核不足，因此他们可以介入并撤销那些获得职位但表现不佳的人的职位，这个过程很可能会非常缓慢。在 Gimkit 论坛上，审核问题有时会几周都得不到解决，所以如果论坛所有者（Josh）实施这个想法，他可能会期望它能正常运行而无需进行干预。如果工作人员不经常介入，该系统可能会产生一个糟糕的版主，扰乱论坛几周。
再说一遍，我喜欢这个想法。它不应该被鼓励作为默认选项，并且应该有一套良好的控制机制，以便，正如你所说，其他不同的论坛可以使用这个功能。
5 个赞
所以，如果有人真的想这样做，
你们可以简单地使用一个投票。然后提拔获胜者。你们不需要插件或软件。
不是每个人都想要这个更新。只需创建一个投票，并使用论坛内置的投票功能。
只是向你们展示一下，IO games 论坛就是这样做的。效果出奇地好，但你们确实需要手动将常客提拔为领导者。
https://iogames.forum/t/tl4-election-september-2024/23964?u=twofoursixeight
之所以应该这样做，是因为它的简单性。论坛的所有者或管理员可以发布一个像上面那样的主题，完成后，他们可以简单地将他们提拔为领导者。不需要额外的软件。
3 个赞
正如我所说，在预先存在的论坛上，这不会自动激活。另外，我刚想到一个快速的解决方案来帮助解决这些问题；
为了限制不良领导者，我已经提到只有工作人员/tl4/版主/管理员提名的用户和普通用户，他们大部分时间都应该表现良好，才能被添加到投票中。此外，他们需要说明为什么他们应该被选入“办公室”，并在他们的个人资料中更新，如果该功能已开启（即使关闭再开启，数据也会保存）。此外，大量的社区标记可能会提醒其他版主/管理员。虽然这不能完全解决您的问题，但可以减轻其影响。总的来说，这取决于论坛的成熟度和本质。
正如我之前所说，它默认只在新创建的论坛上启用。会出现一个弹出窗口，询问他们是否要禁用它，并说明其作用（优点：易于管理、社区声音等）和缺点（可能不成熟的工作人员）。这也可以在管理员控制中轻松关闭。
您提到了规则，我同意，因为管理涉及很多责任。它可能会占据一个人生活的一部分。[1]如果您不值得担任版主，您可以放弃。此外，规则也可以用于投票、管理、创建等。也许为 tl4 设置自定义标记条件；如果设置已开启，如果 tl4 收到足够的标记（他们被标记了），管理层就会收到通知（标记为紧急），如果他们认为 tl4 不合格，他们就会将其降级。
通过社区标记，也许它们可以被管理层重新启用（也许是 tl4？圆圈，我会这么说，但我不太确定他们所有的能力。）也许有一套特殊的规则适用，如果你无缘无故地标记玩家太多次[2]，你就会被自动取消资格，从而阻止了人气竞赛。
@twofoursixeight，这对一些将从中受益的人来说将无济于事。要么管理不善，要么创建投票并不容易，一个内置的、可自定义的系统，可以在需要时开启和关闭，将是整体上最好的选择。就像 @idontexist 的情况一样；他们管理不善，想要这个功能，管理层可以轻松地开启它并解决他们所有的问题。而你，仅仅因为你解决了你的问题，并不意味着其他人没有遇到你最初遇到的同样问题。
而且总有这个：
据我所知，这还没有被 Discourse 正式（或根本）证伪，所以总有可能……
编辑：
致 @Heliosurge：
何不采用一个审查算法？这在许多专业系统中都有使用：
步骤 1：初步筛选
-
检索一份已表示有兴趣担任类别版主或 TL4 职位的潜在候选人名单。
-
应用基本过滤器，排除以下用户：
- 已被永久封禁或有活跃的停职。
- 有重大标记历史（例如，骚扰、仇恨言论或垃圾邮件）。
- 在过去 2 年内曾多次被静音或停职。
-
应用一个过滤器，允许非regulars 加入，如果他们表现出杰出的领导能力，例如但不限于：
- 在短时间内获得多个金牌或同等级别的徽章（例如，优秀话题、优秀回复、爱好者、月度新用户、万事通/解决方案机构、代笔（如果启用）、等）。
- 被工作人员单独选中参加选举。
- 标记了多名最终被管理层封禁的用户。
步骤 2：互动分析
- 让算法 AI 分析候选人在网站上的互动模式，包括：
- 评论和帖子历史。
- 与其他用户的互动（例如，回复、点赞和点踩）。
- 参与讨论和帖子。
- 评估他们在与他人互动时的语气、语言和行为。
步骤 3：标记审查
- 审查已针对候选人提出的任何标记，包括：
- 轻微标记（例如，轻微违规或误解）。
- 重大标记（例如，骚扰、仇恨言论或垃圾邮件）。
- 评估标记的严重程度和频率，以确定它们是否表明存在问题行为模式。
步骤 4：停职和静音历史
- 检查候选人过去是否被停职或静音。
- 评估这些行为的原因，并评估候选人是否表现出改进或从错误中学习的意愿。
步骤 5：候选人动机和可用性
- 验证候选人是否对该职位感兴趣并愿意承担责任。
- 评估他们的可用性和承诺，以投入时间担任该职务。
步骤 6：保密协议
关于这一点不确定：
- 要求通过初步审查的候选人签署保密协议，确保他们理解保密和维护网站价值观的重要性。
步骤 7：最终评估和选择
- 汇总前几步的结果，AI 评估候选人是否总体适合该职位。
- 如果流程有问题，AI 将将其转发给核心工作人员管理员和全体版主，他们将审查候选人并根据审查结果做出最终决定。
选举后监控
- 建立一个系统来监控当选的副版主和类别版主的表现。
- 定期审查他们的行为、互动和决策，以确保它们符合网站的政策和价值观。
- 及时解决任何问题或疑虑，并在必要时采取纪律处分。
算法调整和优化
- 持续监控审查算法的有效性，并收集社区和版主的反馈。
- 根据需要优化算法，以确保其公平、有效，并符合网站的目标和价值观。[3]
通过实施此审查算法，您可以增加为类别版主和 TL4 职位选择合格和合适候选人的机会，同时最大限度地降低选出可能损害社区或网站价值观的个人的风险。
至于您提出的其他挑战；
如果必须如此，那么它将对所有论坛自动关闭，但仍会弹出窗口询问他们是否要开启它。
至于您的另一部分，我不确定它是否既是核心功能又是推广有效的。另外，它仍然是一个插件，许多论坛不引入许多插件，这会削弱其部分目的。
编辑
AI 可以应用有效的通用过滤器。它将结合使用统计数据和推理。
据我所知，AI 不花钱，只花时间和内存，用于测试、编码、运行等。
全体工作人员可以完成这些任务，但会更困难、更耗时。AI 将是更好的竞争者，并将为工作人员腾出更多时间进行管理和其他任务，同时留出空闲时间，因为在线工作人员也有生活。不像 AI。
我也不确定协议，因为存在相互矛盾的意见，并且在收集支持信息时尽量保持偏见最小。将有一个更简单的合同；坏的 → 被降级
另外，经过良好训练的现代 AI 非常守规矩且聪明，因此它能够很好地处理数据而不撒谎。对于许多 AI 来说，这正是它们的目的。
最后，这是一个可以轻松开启和关闭的设置，所以最终将由管理员选择，他们可以选择使用此功能或不使用，它只是为 tl4 问题提供了一个方便、有效且对社区友好的解决方案，并赋予社区在管理中的发言权。
2 个赞
核心的管理员和全体版主不会通过投票产生。提议的可选方案是针对分类版主和 TL4 用户。同意候选人需要经过审查，并有资格成为候选人的条件。如果当选的副版主助手越界，核心网站工作人员需要处理。
提议的候选人需要接受审查。他们如何互动，是否有人举报过他们？如果有，是轻微的还是重大的？他们是否被禁言和/或停职。如果当选，他们想要这个职位吗？
在任何网站的流程中，都需要进行大量的调整和实施。如果小心处理，它可以增强参与度，否则可能会阻碍社区发展。
全体版主拥有没有经过适当审查和保密协议的社区成员不应拥有的能力。
2 个赞
不，即使是新论坛，这也不能是标准的。它需要是一个可选功能，无论是插件、主题组件还是核心的一部分。
网站管理团队需要完全控制可选功能。
查看“话题投票”插件。为此目的创建一个类别，可以在需要时使该类别可访问。然后，每个候选人都可以宣传他们的话题，用户可以投票选择候选人话题。
3 个赞
在很大程度上，你描述的是一个建议的程序
整个网站团队都需要做一些手动工作。这可以通过 Data Explorer 插件查询得到一定程度的增强。
一个好的网站团队会对他们的用户群有很好的感觉/认识
并非每个人都愿意花钱使用人工智能。尽管它正变得越来越便宜。
第三步、第四步和第五步可以由全体员工进行评估，同样也可以使用数据探索器查询来帮助简化流程。因为这些“选举”不应该那么频繁。一些人工工作是理想的。
这更多是全体员工的需要，因为根据设置，他们可以访问例如电子邮件地址等内容。
TL4 和 Cat Mods 没有这种级别的访问权限，所以一个更简单的协议就可以了。如果被选出的子版主未能履行其职责或滥用特权，则网站团队需要确定纠正措施。可能是撤销子版主特权，以及可能的禁言或封禁。
与任何公司一样，担任更高职位的人需要进行监控和评估。数据查询结合人工参与是最好的。否则，你就会陷入像 FB 和 Toba（在较小程度上是 Reddit）那样非人道的境地。
最终，你提出的想法是如何做的。将是一个建议的程序。核心网站团队必须决定他们是否使用选举子版主的想法，以及他们将如何运作并在此过程中进行调整。
许多网站不会使用这种概念，原因有很多，正如 Jag 所说。例如，一家公司会为员工和客户使用它，他们会希望由公司来任命人员担任这些职位。因此，这不能成为强加给 Discourse Meta 客户/用户的标准。
2 个赞
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:
A Description Of The Conversation
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.
Strengths of TL4 Promotion by Election Poll
1. Community Engagement and Empowerment
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】.
2. Accountability Through Election
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.
Addressing Counterarguments
1. Risk of Popularity Contests
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】.
Counterargument:
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】.
2. Concerns About Automation and the Use of Bots
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】.
Counterargument:
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.
3. Unworthiness of Elected Leaders
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.
Counterargument:
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.
Conclusion
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.
Into Why This Is A Good Idea
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.
Positive Contributions of TL4 Elections
1. Community Engagement
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.
2. Accountability and Transparency
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】.
3. Inclusiveness and Representation
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.
Addressing Potential Criticisms
1. Risk of Popularity Contests
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.
Objective Analysis:
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.
2. Automation and Potential Abuse
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】.
Objective Analysis:
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】.
3. Moderation Competency
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】.
Objective Analysis:
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.
Balancing Elections with Administrative Oversight
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】.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of TL4 promotion through community election polls offers numerous benefits to online forums, particularly in terms of community engagement,
How The System Works exactly
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.
1. Initiating the Election Process
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.
2. Candidate Selection and Vetting
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.
Vetting Algorithm
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:
- Post quality: The content of their contributions to discussions, focusing on whether their posts have been constructive, respectful, and helpful.
- Interaction patterns: Their engagement with other users, including likes, replies, and responses to others.
- Flagging history: Any history of receiving flags from other users, especially for infractions such as harassment, spamming, or abusive behavior.
- Suspension history: Whether they have been silenced or suspended and whether they have shown improvement in behavior since【6†source】.
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.
3. Voting Mechanism
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.
Handling Ties and Rejections
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.
4. Post-Election Monitoring and Accountability
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】.
5. Administrator and Moderator Oversight
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.
Customization and Flexibility
To account for varying forum needs, the election system would include several customizable settings:
- Frequency of elections: Administrators could decide how often elections take place, ranging from biweekly to biennial.
- Eligibility requirements: Administrators could tweak the criteria for candidate nominations, voter eligibility, and the use of vetting algorithms.
- Poll visibility: Poll results could remain private or be made public after the election, depending on the forum’s preferences【6†source】.
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.
6. Vetting Algorithm Enhancements
Unit_72’s proposal includes integrating advanced algorithms to evaluate potential TL4 candidates more thoroughly. The algorithm would conduct the following checks:
- Interaction analysis: It would analyze a candidate’s interaction history, determining their contributions’ quality, their engagement style, and how respectful they are in discussions.
- Flagging and behavior: The algorithm would assess flags raised against the candidate, determining whether they were minor misunderstandings or signs of problematic behavior【6†source】.
- Suspensions: The system would evaluate the reasons behind any suspensions or silencing and determine whether the candidate has demonstrated growth and responsibility afterward【6†source】.
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.
7. Customization for Existing and New Forums
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.
Conclusion
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.
Small Details That Make The Difference
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.
1. Recognition of Excellence through Badges
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.
2. Separate Bio Section for Candidate Justifications
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】.
3. One TL4 Elected per Election
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.
4. Election Frequency and Flexibility
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.
5. Flagging and Monitoring TL4 Behavior Post-Election
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】.
6. Preventing Popularity Contests
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.
7. Vetting Algorithm with AI Capabilities
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.
8. Election Rejection and Backup Candidates
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.
Conclusion
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.)
1 个赞
我认为您可能需要重读我发布的内容。您的想法只能是一种选择，而人工智能的使用则可以根据成本和其他因素来决定。
Discourse 是一个开放平台，因此任何想法都可以通过工作来实现。这个想法不能是强制默认，也不能是。您提出的程序只能是建议。每个社区都需要自行决定潜在的功能使用。
即使在使用人工智能的情况下，直接的人工互动也是处理此类事务的最佳实践。
2 个赞
从本质上讲，投票是行不通的，因为它不会直接改变个人的信任级别，需要审核，这会破坏大部分的目的。
此外，这很简单。如果你不想举行选举，或者不希望它直接改变状态，或者想要直接的人工批准而不是与算法并存，那么只需在你的管理员设置中切换或自定义选举即可。
这将解决你提出的所有问题，尽管这在原始帖子中已经说明了。
此外，如果你仍然因为某些原因反对选举，这仍然是一个想法，尚未得到 Discourse 员工的批准。
1 个赞