Kenneth Peterson5 said:Alright, here’s a constructive proposal for ya.
I’m suggesting that every three months, we rotate moderators on each sub-forum through a vote involving both users and mods. And who gets to vote on a specific sub-forum? Here's the deal:
Any user registered on that sub-forum who has started at least one thread that hit at least 20 replies and over 2,000 views.
(And if anyone’s wondering why people with 500 or even 1,000 posts can't vote if they haven't started a thread on that specific sub-forum—it's simple. They haven't shown they actually care or have the ability to kick off an interesting discussion, which would actually add value to the boards they're trying to influence.)
If at least 30% of the eligible voters aren't happy with how the current mod is doing, then that mod is out.
The users who voted against the current mod can suggest replacements, and we hold a poll to pick the new one. Everyone on that board who has started at least one thread with at least 15 participants and 1,000 views gets to vote in that poll.
Then, we run the whole process again in three months.
That’s how you actually improve the quality of moderation (and the boards themselves)—by having people step up to help out rather than just acting like little bosses.
I'm on board with the proposal, but honestly? It needs a total overhaul from top to bottom. 😁
Look, this whole thing about "contributing quality" by starting a thread is completely irrelevant. Why should I be forced to start a new topic just to participate? If there’s already a thread I care about, I’ll just jump in there. It’s a non-issue. Otherwise, you just end up with a bunch of clone threads created by people who only want to cast a vote. Plus, there's always that risk: a moderator could just lock a thread without any real reason—even if it hits 1,922 views in two days—just to intentionally block someone from voting. Makes sense, right?
Even with 30% of the voters backing the change, it’s still not enough to trigger a swap. Meanwhile, voting for a new moderator? Completely impossible. Is anyone actually listening?
This is how I’d probably put it together...
To be a voter, you need at least 500 posts total. Plus, you gotta have at least 10 posts in the specific PDF where the poll is actually hosted before it goes live. That’s it. Simple enough?
A limit of 500 posts total just to prevent clone voting. Let's be real—clones with that many posts are incredibly rare anyway. Anything over 10 posts on the PDF is just unnecessary clutter. A user can follow the thread both actively and passively, and honestly, maybe the moderators' own rules are what’s stopping people from posting more on the PDF in the first place? If someone hits that 10-post threshold, the burden of proof is on them. If a moderator or whoever started the vote change starts asking questions about where this voter came from or why they're suddenly appearing on the PDF, they'll have to provide the receipts.
Maybe we should just set a minimum voter turnout requirement for elections to be considered valid? Just a thought.
It’s honestly impossible to pin down exactly how many users are actually contributing to the PDF. If we want a real number, we should probably just look at the total count of unique users—clones included—who participated in the single most active thread on the entire PDF, whether that was a casual chat or something else entirely. It would be a perfect way to backfire on anyone cloning accounts, since it would only drive up the minimum voter turnout. Plus, it would give those people constantly chatting a much-needed reality check.
The vote percentage required for removal would be exactly the same as the threshold for impeaching the Constitution. That means two-thirds—or 66.67%—of valid voters have to cast their ballots for a removal if we want to oust the moderator.
Elections aren't mandatory. Any user who meets voter requirements and is fed up with how a moderator is handling things can request one. The poll would run for a month—enough time for everyone who actually cares to weigh in. If the vote fails to unseat them, no new elections can be requested for that same moderator for three months, and a single user can only trigger this once. If a moderator survives three failed election attempts, they get permanent immunity from user-initiated removals. To prevent random people from messing with the results, the poll thread would stay pinned at the top of the specific subreddit/board they moderate, rather than being out here, so only active members of that community are voting.
Naturally, breaking these election rules would result in a ban, with the length determined by the severity of the violation.
If a moderator actually gets ousted, they’re removed from that board. Depending on what the admins decide, they either get fired or moved to a different board if leadership thinks they deserve a second chance. Either way, they can never return to the board they were kicked from. Appointing a replacement is strictly up to leadership; regular users shouldn't have any say in who takes over.
Look, this proposal actually favors moderators quite a bit. The chances of successfully "toppling" someone are slim. BUT, if someone actually manages to get replaced despite all these hurdles, then they clearly don't deserve to moderate that space anymore and it's for the best. Moderators shape the culture of a sub; their style dictates traffic and how people talk, which directly impacts how many people end up unhappy. Higher engagement is a win for both admins and users—more people means more diverse views and better discussions, which naturally drives up quality.
The election bylaws could still be fleshed out in detail, but obviously, we're waiting for the green light from the higher-ups... 😁
