Now I can see wanting to have a discussion across both communities, but I can also see /c/cars wanting discuss cars without having every conversation devolve into an argument or admonishment.
As I was writing this another problem came to mind. You have a pooled discussion across two or more communities with two or more moderation policies. How could that be reconciled?
I think you’ve convinced me that it’s a slightly more complicated problem than I initially gave it credit for; thank you for that!
I think you could solve for the disparate community theme problem by also requiring title match for mergers. You could probably also solve for it by having a 2-way merger whitelist on links. E.g community A and B both maintain lists of “similar” communities and then if A’s list contains B and vice-versa they would merge.
Comment moderation I got nothing though. That’s a tough one.
ccunning@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
For me it’s easy to imagine an article being linked to two communities that are going to have drastically different takes.
!cars@lemmy.world and !fuckcars@lemmy.world for example.
Now I can see wanting to have a discussion across both communities, but I can also see /c/cars wanting discuss cars without having every conversation devolve into an argument or admonishment.
As I was writing this another problem came to mind. You have a pooled discussion across two or more communities with two or more moderation policies. How could that be reconciled?
Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I think you’ve convinced me that it’s a slightly more complicated problem than I initially gave it credit for; thank you for that!
I think you could solve for the disparate community theme problem by also requiring title match for mergers. You could probably also solve for it by having a 2-way merger whitelist on links. E.g community A and B both maintain lists of “similar” communities and then if A’s list contains B and vice-versa they would merge.
Comment moderation I got nothing though. That’s a tough one.