"Personally I think the only way to maintain a very high standard of quality in a community is strict hands-on moderation and swift ejection of members who don't match the community's goals and vibe."
Many communities I've seen have done this in a way that drops-off over time.
Screw up any of your first 3 posts... you're out of here.
Posts 3 > 10... you're going to get a warning, and may still be out of here.
Posts 10 > 25... warnings only, only extreme cases get banned.
Above 25 posts you're largely left to it, though once in a blue moon someone will screw up so spectacularly that they'll get pulled up by the community.
Even then, the "pulled up by the community" is literally that. No moderators or banning, but the communities that enforce rules strictly for new members and than relax once you get comfortable within the constraints, generally are also the ones in which if you suddenly made an extremely racist post the solution is to be ripped to shreds by your peers rather than to censor and hide it... it reinforces the "that behaviour isn't acceptable here".
This is currently the most successful pattern I've tried. It works far better than other systems I've seen.
Of_Prometheus: There is a deep irony in your post, in that it's marked as dead and not visible to many.
The question was, "How does that system deal with the old members > new members hierarchy that would develop? I think the problem with giving a member a longer stick the longer they stay/comment is that older members are given greater leniency when they do decide to be jerks, and new members who may very well develop into excellent members are kicked aside for possibly minor errors, thus creating an unfair advantage."
That hierarchy does exist. I'm not seeking to eradicate it.
The older members tend to be the ones that have established the tone and quality. This can be used to determine the rules that are used in the early stages of membership of a site.
But generally that hierarchy refers to inner circles and cliques who are protective of what the site evolves into for them, and this isn't addressed in any way by the system to integrate new members.
Old members will eventually leave, the question is more whether the value of the community is preserved when that happens.
Of_Prometheus: you're probably hell banned. You'll see your posts, but others who didn't explicitly enable the option will not.Which is also something that I see a lot lately... pretty well written comments from hell banned accounts. Makes me a bit uneasy - maybe there was some reason for those actions, but I rarely see one in the author's history.
Many communities I've seen have done this in a way that drops-off over time.
Screw up any of your first 3 posts... you're out of here.
Posts 3 > 10... you're going to get a warning, and may still be out of here.
Posts 10 > 25... warnings only, only extreme cases get banned.
Above 25 posts you're largely left to it, though once in a blue moon someone will screw up so spectacularly that they'll get pulled up by the community.
Even then, the "pulled up by the community" is literally that. No moderators or banning, but the communities that enforce rules strictly for new members and than relax once you get comfortable within the constraints, generally are also the ones in which if you suddenly made an extremely racist post the solution is to be ripped to shreds by your peers rather than to censor and hide it... it reinforces the "that behaviour isn't acceptable here".
This is currently the most successful pattern I've tried. It works far better than other systems I've seen.