Here’s something I have been thinking about today. It came from voat going down yesterday and looking at some of the other options out there for those voaters who were displaced.
I personally like the level of admin involvement here. It’s the perfect mix for me.
We know what it looks like when a site has zero involvement with the community (voat/putt)
I’m curious, do you guys think sites like phuks, voat, poal, etc can be over moderated by admins? Do you think the admins should have a somewhat stand off approach until needed?
Just a curious thought.
Edit: do we have a casual conversation sub? This might fit that sub and my other thoughts better as I’m just looking for some light conversation. I can’t access the sub key on mobile.
I think it just depends on the community and their concerns.
If a site is dialed in, the community is self-managing, and there's no security issues, very little admin interaction is actually needed (imo). In that situation, I think a monthly "hello how are you" from an admin, and maybe a quick Q&A is more than enough.
But when a community is growing rapidly, fairly new, or under malicious attack all the time, daily admin activities and something like weekly updates would seem fitting.
Infrequent management can make the user feel unappreciated, overactive management probably (at worst) will make the user pay less attention to what the admin has to say. This dynamic is exactly like the relationship between an employer and their employees.
It all just depends on how that admin wants the community to think of them.