1 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
Another suggestion:
How about creating a rotating committee of moderators and/or users, somewhat analogous to Wikipedia's elected Arbitration Committee[1] or Mediation Committee[2]? They could be in charge of some level of decision-making around certain kinds of policy enforcement (subreddit favoritism) and also be privy to certain kinds of admin changes.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee
This seems to have overall worked out pretty well for Wikipedia; for example, they successfully navigated the Deletionism controversy. The process has not, of course, been drama-free, and there may be a problem with editor attrition. But it does seem to have improved relations between the admins and the users, and redirected a part of the frustration from admins vs. users (where the former side has huge advantages in power, voice, information over the latter) to one of users vs. users (e.g. when conducting elections for the committee).
There's nothing here!