Howdy folks,

We’re launching c/CommunityRequests to combat a growing issue on Lemmy.ca in general, which is unmoderated communities. What this will do is allow you to apply to take over an unmoderated community by posting in c/CommunityRequests a request to take the community over. Ultimately we decided to steal the system used on Reddit, but with some modifications to make it a bit more fair to users submitting requests.

Our initial guidelines are as follows:

  1. A community will be considered unmoderated if the moderators have not interacted with the community for over a month.
  2. Users may request communities where no moderators are interacting with the community.
  3. Moderators within the community may ask to have the top mod replaced if the top mod is inactive, but other moderators are still active.
  4. In both cases, moderators have 5 days to appeal the request. If no appeal is received within the time-frame, the request will be granted by the Admin Team to the requestor.
  5. Requests made in bad faith will be rejected. For example, requesting a community you have been permanently banned from for justified reasons, or requesting a community in order to completely change the purpose of it for the worse.

These guidelines may be adjusted a bit as time goes on. This is a new system and we’re going to need to try things for a bit to see if they work or not.

In any event, feel free to start using the community immediately. Please give us feedback on your thoughts and ideas!

Cheers, Ms. SourCreamAndGarlic

  • Otter@lemmy.caM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    My only suggestion would be to maybe make the window a little longer. While I use Lemmy a lot (and I used Reddit a lot too), I can see 5 days being too little for some people who are busy with work to write up a proper explanation.

    At the same time, I guess there is a question about how well moderated a community is if no one checks in for 5 days. Could you have it so that the request needs to be acknowledged within a week, but a proper explanation has a longer window?

    • Ms. SourCreamAndGarlic@lemmy.caOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think that’s a good policy honestly. It at least shows effort that you want to keep the community to send a message saying you’d like to keep it before giving a detailed explanation. The 5 days is definitely more of a “we’ve heard nothing from this user at all.” That 5 days is still up to be workshopped a bit, we’re just trying this as an opening standard.

      Realistically, I think if somebody sent a message saying “I’m still willing to be active and run the community” we’d take them at their word and consider that request to take over a community as denied if it were an outside user. Somebody can always request it again if they don’t make an effort to moderate the community after that, and we’d notice if there were a pattern of them saying they’d moderate the community and then not following through.

      For top mod removals it’s a bit more complex and we’d want a more detailed answer regardless, but I think a response of “Hey I’m busy this week but I can message you Monday next week” is reasonable.

    • TruckBC@lemmy.caM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess there is a question about how well moderated a community is if no one checks in for 5 days.

      This is exactly where the 5 days comes from.

      The issue we’re facing is there are some active communities that are getting reports where the current moderators are not active, not dealing with reports, and not responding to communication from admins.

      While it’s workable on a small scale, as admins we shouldn’t be defacto relief moderators, and really shouldn’t be enforcing any community specific rules.