Hacker News Reader

Comment by lxe | Hacker News Reader

> What Aether does is, you can actually disable the mods that you don’t approve just for yourself, and those disables count as an impeach vote. If majority of the community agrees, the mod loses mod rights for a while for everyone. That makes it so that Aether communities are places where the content is what the current users of the communities want, not those who were there first by chance.

Even if "impeaching mods through votes" is unpractical, subscribing to an unmoderated view of the forum on your own accord is brilliant!

View on HN

It is brilliant. The moderation layer is a like a data view.

I wonder, what happens if, going a step further, there are different moderation teams working on the same comment stream, and readers could flip between them at will? If you ever wondered what the other side was thinking, you could flip views and experience it.

Of course, you still need some absolute site rules to cover doxxing and illegalities.

> I wonder, what happens if, going a step further, there are different moderation teams working on the same comment stream, and readers could flip between them at will?

It already has that. :)

That is the whole point of moderation - you can choose who you want to be moderated by. (It’s on a per mod basis for now, though, but per mod team is a good idea. Thanks for the feature request!)

Maybe people you follow or "mark as trustworthy", should also be more relevant in what you see.

That's something that came to my mind as well. Probably there's something interesting following that path too — though for the time being I'm focused on getting the basics right first.

I like the way you sum this up Ixe. Your comment illicits a mental model like a manual transmission where the terrain (dynamics of the conversation) sets the context for what gear to select (which mods to have in place) , based on how much gas you are giving the engine, which is a personal choice of the driver. One driver may choose a very low gear to go down a hill (a conservative moderator that controls the decent of the vehicle) and another driver may wish to just coast down at high speed (very litte moderation). Same car, same terrain, different driver, different choice for what gear to keep it in. The mental model gets a little loose goosy when you consider that this is not a single person making the decision but rather a group, but oh well. Thanks Burak for making this platform. I'm really enjoying the ride so far!

I completed the mental model... It's. Like one of those 12 passenger 4x4 off road tour vans, or even a 100 passenger hydrofoil boat, where the driver has a reputation score, as do the passengers, and you can pick which boat you want to go on based on the expected conditions of the drive. If the boat ride is billed as a leisurely jaunt for calm bird watching, and the driver knows this is what the passengers want, and he decides to push the pedal to the metal and everyone is thrown about, the passengers can suspend the driver and pick one who understands the consensus of the what the groups specifications are. This has amazing potential as a platform for civil engagement and public works management and other areas of social coordination. I can't wait to get into this further.

Actually the group's decisions are made by singular decisions based on users, so your own decisions are prioritised over the group's. So if the group decides to impeach a mod, but you voted to keep the mod in place, that mod is still a mod for you, because you voted to support that guy — even if s/he is no longer a mod for the group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com