Where? I haven’t heard any of that.

Trust lvls themselves are just Karma plus login/read tracking aka extra steps.

Trust Levels are acquired by reading posts and spending time on the platform, instead of receiving votes for posting. Therefore, it wouldn’t lead to low-quality content unless you choose to implement it that way.

The Karma system is used more as a bragging right than to give any sort of moderation privilege to users.

But in essence is similar, you get useless points with one and moderation privileges with the other.

If you are actually advocating that the Fediverse use Discourse’s service you have to be out of your mind.

You are making things up just so you can call me crazy. I’m not advocating anything of the sort.

Karma promotes shitposting, memes and such, I’ve yet to see that kind of content on Discourse.

Yeah, and the FOSS alternative Codidact isn’t any better. What’s the point of asking for solutions for bugs when even an LLM can solve that already? I want proper solutions to actual problems so that I can find everything in there, not just troubleshooting bugs.

There has to be a way to federate trust levels otherwise all of this just isn’t applicable to the fediverse. One of the links I posted talks about how to federate trust levels. So the appeal is processed by a user with a higher trust level.

A system like this rewards frequent shitposting over slower qualityposting. It is also easily gamed by organized bad faith groups. Imagine if this was Reddit and T_D users just gave each other a high trust score, valuing their contributions over more “organic” posts.

You are just assuming that this would work similarly to Reddit based on karma. I don’t know why you would assume the worst possible implementation just so you can complain about this. If you had read the links, you would know that shitposting wouldn’t help much because what contributes most to Trust Levels in Discourse is reading posts.

I don’t know how that works. Why would have to do anything to participate in the discussions? The curation can be done by whoever wants to do it.

I’ve based the idea on Discourse which has very good moderation. I don’t know why everyone is talking about StackExchange, did I mention it anywhere?

I don’t really mind whether or not the issues I suggested are implemented, but it frustrates me when they close the issues without listening to the input from the community.

Why would I cry, shithead? You are just an annoying internet rando.

After I got a few issues closed without waiting for community feedback I just got frustrated and closed them all.

Go fuck yourself already. And no I’m not wrong you just can’t read. Those discussions you mention don’t need to be however you want them to be.

Where is the rule that says this is a serious sub? You are just making things up. Get the stick out of your ass. Any sub can have lighthearted posts unless they state otherwise.

Some sort of appeal process to deal with human bias and punish moderators abusing power and remove their privileges would help address concerns about potential troll moderators.

My post was meant lightheartedly about gamifying content tagging, not seriously advocating for increased corporate control of the internet.

Having AGI as moderators would be a futuristic dream come true. However, until that becomes a reality, it’s crucial to consider the well-being of human moderators who are exposed to disturbing content like CSAM and graphic images. I believe it would be important to provide moderators with the ability to decrease their moderation levels to avoid such content.

Why would anyone contribute? Would you pay someone to work for you if they don’t want to listen to anything you have to say? When they close issues without allowing the community to provide input, that’s exactly what they are doing. If they were too busy to engage with the issue tracker, I wouldn’t mind. However, if they simply appear to close issues with numerous upvotes and no downvotes, it frustrates me.

Yeah, this seems to favor people who stick to one account, but I also enjoy seeing some of the regular posters here. Even though I like creating new accounts, I wouldn’t mind if they were given moderation privileges to share the workload. I’m unsure about the implementation details, so I can’t comment on the protocol. What I do know is that Reddit moderation sucks, while Discourse moderation rocks.

People keep mentioning StackOverflow even though I specifically mention Discourse. The two do similar things but one does it right and the other doesn’t. I don’t really understand how it would be inconvenient to create accounts. If you are active and behave you get moderation privileges otherwise you get the same experience as you do now.

The benefit of this is that only individuals who are interested will progress up the trust level ladder. If you are indifferent, you will have the same experience as currently. I believe this benefits everyone involved.