I think a larger issue is what amounts to domain squatting.

People either recreating popular subs or creating magazines of the type of content they would like to read and then not providing any themselves.

People who come across a made yet empty mag can understandable be discouraged from contributing just for somebody else (who hasn’t shown commitment to the community) to be able to control it.

Effectively it’s absentee landlordism to stake claim to names and wait for posts to come.

Perhaps a better approach would be to delete magazines with no posts so that names would always be available to people who would use them.

I’d support a limit, the so called “supermods” were a detriment to Reddit overall. Not to mention, as others have stated" they end up being egoistical petty kings of their fiefs. If I see gallowboob on here I’ll be right upset.

I’m all for more accountability and providing some guard rails but a per account limit will not solve much. It is trivial to have and to use multiple accounts to bypass any limits.

It is a tricky topic - power mods in and of themselves are not inherently a problem. If fact, I’d argue that people who take it upon themselves to moderate many communities (successfully) contribute more to the health of a site than the majority of users.

I suppose it is worth diving into the specifics of why a single user moderating multiple communities can be problematic. Then what can be done to address these issues.

Perhaps a tribunal system that allows the mods of other federated servers (who moderated the “same” type of content) to intervene in a conflict. I’d be worried about abuse with any automatic system, but at the very least a way to petition a site owner to step in would be helpful. A way to say “the collective federated mods believe that [@]Spez[@]kbin.social is problematic [due to exibit A, B, etc.] and it is agreed upon than they should be removed as a moderator of m/RedditMigration“

I think Reddit’s /u/awkwardtheturtle is a prime example of why that is a good idea. It’s a toxic sexist supermod that made it in the news a few times already and never got punished for any of their comments towards other users & groups. These type of supermods also can act abusive across several communities. If they don’t like you, they can basically ban you in a lot of places.

Only if it’s an admin-tuneable limit. Different instances will want to handle this differently.

Yes. We don’t want another AwkwardTheTurtle or iBleeedOrange to reign supreme.

Another example. All those subs have the same moderator, next to the name is the thread, comments, post and subscribers counters.

mildlyinteresting 0 0 0 260

explainlikeimfive 0 0 0 173

interestingasfuck 0 0 0 374

damnthatsinteresting 0 0 0 220

LivestreamFail 0 0 0 16

LifeProTips 0 0 3 327

Tell me it’s a good sign.

I don’t think this is a problem right now. I’m in favour of deferring any decision.

Right now, getting more magazines opened is more important than who mods them. Without content, there’s no users, and without users, there’s no content. If someone wants to create a dozen magazines and get the conversations kick-started, that’s a good thing.

If moderation on a new magazine is shit, people will move to a new one. The same thing happened at Reddit. r/gaming was too memy, so people made r/games. You had two large subs in r/relationships and r/relationship_advice.

The only issue in my mind has to do with continuity planning. What do we do in a few months when a hundred magazines have AWOL moderation? Who decides?

This website should do nothing like reddit mods are. They are loser special snowflakes who ban everyone they don’t like. Also take it easy with sitewide rules. Reddit rules on their own are very strict.