I've heard various ideas such as limiting it only after mods have expended their points (this will require implementing a cooldown to prevent a user from getting points again too soon). I want to hear your feedback, and I'll roll together something for the next major update of the site. Leave your comments
Automatic meta-moderation: I've thought about that as well, but...lemmings. You don't want to encourage group-think.
- Sometimes at the other site I've seen a thought-provoking post buried with "flamebait" and "troll". I've spent the odd mod-point trying to get it back up where people might see it.
- The flip-side isn't really any prettier: Someone espouses an easy, PC point and collects an easy +5. I have been known to be a grouch and and give a "-1 overrated".
Mind, I'd still do both of these things even if I get a penalty for it - but I won't be able to do many of them - and there would be that extra psychological barrier.
Do we really need metamoderation? Especially if you gamify the karma a bit. It shouldn't age *too* fast - sometimes life happens and someone is away for a couple of weeks - but over the course of months, I think this is a stunningly good idea.
I've come to the conclusion that moderation was brilliant only in the fact that it was a solid concept. I felt much of the underlying math and assumptions using to underpin the system simple are fundamentally wrong.
I've written pretty heavily about why I think slashdot's old moderation algo is busted and have gone through a lot of lengths to justify the changes I made here. I *do* read every comment, email, and post on articles I post, and I frequently comment on all of them. I've already got a LOT of good feedback on this, including another thing to poll the community about (which I'm going to write up for Thursday or Friday).