Objective
To create a moderation and administrative system that balances freedom and order by holding moderators and administrators accountable to the same standards as users while fostering a fair, transparent, and dynamic governance structure. This framework is designed to mitigate abuses of power, increase community trust, and maintain a stable yet adaptable system.
- Guidelines for Moderators and Administrators
1.1 Rule Compliance
Moderators and administrators must adhere to the same rules and policies that apply to regular users.
Violations by moderators or administrators will result in disciplinary action, including warnings, suspensions, or removal from their roles.
1.2 Transparency and Documentation
All moderator actions (e.g., warnings, bans, content removals) must be logged in a transparent system accessible to the community or an oversight body.
Logs should include the reason for the action and reference the specific rule or guideline enforced.
1.3 Code of Conduct
Moderators and administrators must:
Treat all users with respect and professionalism.
Avoid biases, favoritism, or personal grudges in decision-making.
Provide clear explanations for their actions when requested.
- Temporary Roles and Rotational Terms
2.1 Term Limits
Moderators and administrators will serve for a fixed term of 6 months to 1.5 years, depending on community needs.
After completing a term, moderators must step down or reapply following a mandatory cooldown period (e.g., 3-6 months).
2.2 Eligibility for Renewal
Moderators with strong performance reviews and community trust may reapply for another term.
Renewal decisions will be based on community feedback, adherence to guidelines, and overall fairness in their role.
2.3 Selection Process
Moderators and administrators will be selected through a transparent process: Nominations: Users can nominate candidates based on their contributions and reputation.
Community Voting: Eligible candidates are subject to a community vote or approval process.
Platform Oversight: The platform’s management team will finalize appointments to ensure qualifications are met.
- Checks and Balances
3.1 Appeals System
Users can appeal warnings, bans, or other disciplinary actions to an independent review board or a designated appeals team.
The appeals team will consist of impartial individuals, including non-moderator community members, to ensure fairness.
3.2 Oversight Committee
Establish a council of trusted community members to oversee moderator actions and provide feedback.
The committee will review moderator logs, handle disputes, and recommend corrective actions for misconduct.
3.3 Penalties for Misconduct
Minor Infractions: Warnings or temporary suspension of moderation privileges.
Major Infractions: Immediate demotion, loss of eligibility for future roles, and potential community bans for severe abuses.
- Feedback and Training
4.1 Training Programs
Provide training for moderators and administrators on:
Platform policies and guidelines.
Conflict resolution and communication skills.
Maintaining objectivity and professionalism.
4.2 Regular Feedback Surveys
Conduct periodic surveys to gather user feedback on moderation quality and fairness.
Feedback will be used to identify areas for improvement and guide future policy adjustments.
- Community Empowerment
5.1 User Advocacy
Designate user advocates or liaisons to mediate disputes between users and moderators.
Advocates will represent user concerns to the platform’s management team and assist in resolving conflicts.
5.2 Community Input on Policies
Involve the community in the creation and revision of platform rules and moderation policies.
Host regular discussions, polls, or open forums to ensure rules reflect the community’s needs and values.
5.3 Encouraging Constructive Participation
Reward users who contribute positively to the platform, such as providing helpful feedback, reporting issues, or assisting in content curation.
- Balancing Freedom and Order
This framework ensures a balance between individual freedom and community order by:
Promoting Fairness: Moderators are held to the same standards as users, ensuring accountability.
Ensuring Transparency: Logs and oversight systems prevent secretive or arbitrary decision-making.
Encouraging Participation: Community involvement in policy-making fosters trust and inclusivity.
Maintaining Stability: Rotational roles and periodic reviews ensure fresh perspectives and reduce the risk of entrenched power.
Conclusion
By implementing this balanced moderation framework, online communities can create an environment where freedom and order coexist. This system empowers users, holds moderators and administrators accountable, and ensures that the platform remains a fair and welcoming space for all participants. This proposal aligns with the values of transparency, accountability, and community-driven governance, fostering a sustainable and harmonious platform.
I think this post would be more appropriate to discuss on /c/[email protected] but as the only current active mod in this comm I’ll give my five cents.
This whole thing is way too complicated for the fediverse in its current state, with most of our small communities having maybe only a handful of active users. Besides, many instances are hosted with very differing aims. This sort of system might make sense on an instance like lemmy.world, run by the fedihosting foundation, but many others are run by private individuals as hobby projects. Whilst I think it is a good idea for both admins and mods to be held to the same standard as everybody else, I think it is more important to encourage a diversity of instances.
…Then what’s the point of having a healthy and safe social media platform (even any internet platform), when some abusive individuals are to take up the mod/admin mantle and treat people like dirt and shove people around into making them miserable? If that cannot be done, then I’d rather social media as a whole not exist then.
The fact is, it is one thing to scrap some of the solutions I provided, but it has become evident that most refuse to even try and see what sticks, and some don’t work out, then they should be left out. It is about trying, evolving, and experimenting to improve things so people are more happy. Because I was abused and banned for simply making tags that DID serve a good purpose should I add, and being pushed around as well, that’s why I feel motivated in making such a proposal in the first place, not for myself, but for everyone else who feels the same way I do.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any particular influence on the wider internet, hence why I suggested raising this elsewhere.
Do you feel like abusive admins/mods is currently an issue in this comm (/c/[email protected])? Or on the lemmyNSFW.com instance?
I think it’ll be worth revisiting these topics when the community grows, but right now the challenge is rather how to reach more people and encourage activity.
Hi there!
This is a reminder to edit your post title to include the [Meta] tag. Future posts that are not appropriately tagged will be removed.
/SmuttyLad