1655
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1655 points (98.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
228 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is bad idea though, unless if it's an optional feature that the users themselves choose to activate (e.g similar to multireddit, but you don't have to manually curate the communities yourself). Imagine the same community from two opposing instances (e.g. blahaj and hexbear) somehow got merged by default. That would be an absolute shitshow. Also, how would moderation work? Those communities often have different moderation rule. Can mods from one community remove posts from another community with the same name? This would also be an absolute shitshow.
To ensure maximum shitshow, when channels merge the mods only are allowed to mod users from the merged instances not their own.
Nah. Make the mods battle in a gladiatorial arena for my enjoyment. Winner get the userbase.
Aliasing would work here. Allow a user to create an alias "meme" community that contains multiple meme based comunities. So when a user submits content to the alias the home server can just publish it on all communities. This is only user visible, so the community itself doesn't change... but from a user perspective you see more content under the same alias. Posts made this way could also have some additional Metadata to condense them together when you see the same post on multiple communities.
I like this idea as it could all be done in-browser client side.
This should be an optional feature for moderators. Mods from both communities must virtually shake hands and merge their communities into one. They could tweak how cross-moderation works. If one side becomes unmanageable, the other side can cut the line and split the community again.
Genuinely sounds like a solid idea to me. There are some lingering questions - both technical and non-technical - but they're fairly small. Such as:
My opinion to those questions is what I think is the "right" way to do it, but I also suspect my opinions to 2-4 are the easiest to implement.