Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat.
You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others.
If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bubbles better behaved members to the top. If the bad behaviour continues, by single members or sub-groups, the higher echelon of members will cut that branch loose, or loose their own social standing.
Reapplying members, would have to apply at the lowest ranks (distributing the work) and those would risk dharma loss if they vouched for sb unworthy in the trial out phase.
We never solved the bad tree problem though. What if there exists a whole tree of bad apples vouching for another? You can not rely on the other feudal "houses" indicating this correctly, due to ingame rivalry.
You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bubbles better behaved members to the top. If the bad behaviour continues, by single members or sub-groups, the higher echelon of members will cut that branch loose, or loose their own social standing.
Reapplying members, would have to apply at the lowest ranks (distributing the work) and those would risk dharma loss if they vouched for sb unworthy in the trial out phase.
We never solved the bad tree problem though. What if there exists a whole tree of bad apples vouching for another? You can not rely on the other feudal "houses" indicating this correctly, due to ingame rivalry.