[yulaow]

The first thing for me is: moderators must not be chosen by the community but by the "admins", as it was in the old forums

Moderators chosen by the community contribute to the echo chamber of the community itself and bend the rule in that direction, making the whole subsection more and more polarized in that sense.

Moderators chosen by the admins should me more impartial, potentially taken from outside the community itself, paid for their jobs so they adhere to the general rulebook, and keep all the sections as neutral as possible, encouraging exchange of conflicting opinions without flame.

[muzani]

I've noticed that democratic communities fall apart fast. Democracy works for countries, but on a forum, people will just leave and self-select. If a community leader is unpopular enough, it will branch into a new one and grow or die.

Edit: However I would add that democracy in the form of downvotes and flags usually work well. It can backfire especially around hot topics, but a moderator can usually judge whether or not it is. Such moments are very tough on mods though.

[pschuegr]

Is this really a hard and fast rule, or is it more that you think we should avoid the dumpster fire that is the Reddit mod ownership situation?