• NateNate60@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Make it like a collective: mods can remove their community from a federated collective if they want. Mods can only moderate stuff posted on their community, not in other communities in the collective. But unified rules or just some space for text in a collective will make it seem much nicer and coherent even if it is still a bunch of different communities behind the scenes.

    • Goodie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I dislike that idea. It brings a lot of messyness if the only mod on one server is asleep, etc.

      Im not sure if one god owner of a “federated community” is the right answer. But i do think nods across multiple servers is the right answer? Perhaps giving all individual server community owners equal powers is a good choice?

      Edit: Maybe it’s something server admins could do? “Hey, c/photography, is now an alias for photography@lemm.ee”. Maybe if they decide to unalias it, the local photography becomes a mirror of the remote instance. Then local users could interact as normal, and the remote instance would see incoming users acting as normal remote users?

      • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I think the balance between “sovereign communities”, benevolent (?) dictatorships with one super-admin, or democratic collectives needs to be found. Ultimately this is something that needs to be hammered out, but any solution would be better than none.

        Three possible solutions (just spitballing, not much thought put into them):

        • What I described before as “federated collectives”. New communities can join a collective by asking the others. Maybe there will be a user-weighted vote on this or some other governance mechanism, or maybe it will be consensus-based. Communities can be kicked out of collectives by the same mechanisms or leave on their own. The collective can decide whether mutual mod actions are allowed or not.
        • “Colonial-style” relationships. One “empire” community has powers over other “colony” communities. The empire’s mods can (maybe) perform mod actions on colony communities but not vice versa. Colonies can declare independence or the empire can kick them out. Colonies can join only by asking the empire to accept them.
        • “Roman Republic collectives”: Mods (or active users?) of communities elect a board of prefects for the collective. Prefects (maybe) get mod powers on all communities. The prefects can vote to accept new communities or kick others out. Maybe they can get other management powers too. The “benevolent dictatorship” case is just a special case of Roman Republic where the number of prefects is 1

        Of course, in all cases, an instance refusing to honour the powers of governance authorities would be interpreted as the instance admins withdrawing the community from the collective. Sort of like automatic defederation.