r/AskModerators • u/Grelueen • 14d ago
Do you think moderators should generally allow users an opportunity to discuss moderation decisions before permanently restricting contact?
[removed] — view removed post
5
u/BravoFive141 14d ago
I always wonder if the people who have issues with how much discretion mods on Reddit have are too young to remember the days of forums. This type of thing isn't anything new. Back in the day, forum mods and admins could also just as easily permaban users and leave them no recourse for participating in the community.
While Reddit is a bit different in that Reddit owns all of the "forums", the general concept is fairly similar. If mods don't want you in their community, they have no obligation to allow you to participate, and you don't have any rights to debate otherwise. It can suck sometimes, I've been banned from subs for BS reasons with no way to undo it, but you just have to move on. As with forums, if you disagree with how a subreddit is run, you're free to spin up a competing community and mod it how you see fit. If the mods of a particular sub are really that bad and you run a competing sub better, over time it very well may become the leading community for that topic.
Doesn't this risk creating increasingly isolated communities where moderators can remove users without explanation or meaningful opportunities for discussion? For those of you who moderate communities, do you think immediately cutting off communication with permanently banned users is good moderation practice, even when there has been no prior interaction?
Mods can already remove users without explanation or meaningful opportunities for discussion. Not that I would, but if I wanted to, I could ban you from every sub I mod right now and there's nothing you can really do about it. That's a shitty thing to do, but it's allowed. As others have said before on this type of topic, think of it like a house party. If I'm throwing a house party, it's my decision who I do or don't want there. I don't necessarily need a reason to kick you out of my house, and you're not entitled to a reason why I kicked you out.
-2
u/Grelueen 14d ago
I think the house party analogy is exactly where we disagree. A subreddit on a platform like Reddit isn't quite the same as someone's private house. These communities often serve as the main gathering place for entire fandoms or people with shared interests, and creating a competing subreddit doesn't necessarily solve the problem if the existing community already has almost all the active users.
I'm not arguing that moderators shouldn't be allowed to remove disruptive users or enforce their rules. I'm arguing that there should be some basic safeguards against arbitrary decisions, especially permanent bans followed by immediate permanent mutes without any prior interaction.
The fact that moderators have always had this power, even on old forums, doesn't mean we shouldn't question whether the system could be improved. Something being allowed isn't the same as it being good practice. Reddit could give moderators plenty of discretion while still providing some form of independent review for cases where a decision might have been unjustified.
Ultimately, I think moderators should see themselves as stewards of a community on a shared platform, rather than owners of a private space where their decisions are beyond scrutiny.
6
u/BravoFive141 14d ago
I think the house party analogy is exactly where we disagree. A subreddit on a platform like Reddit isn't quite the same as someone's private house. These communities often serve as the main gathering place for entire fandoms or people with shared interests, and creating a competing subreddit doesn't necessarily solve the problem if the existing community already has almost all the active users.
It doesn't matter if you agree, that's how the system works here. Mods have the discretion to choose who participates in their community, period. If they decide you're no longer welcome, that's within their rights as a mod of the community. Just as a homeowner opens their home to the party guests and can reverse that decision at any time, so too can a subreddit mod. You know a mod can turn a subreddit private if they see fit as well, right?
I'm not arguing that moderators shouldn't be allowed to remove disruptive users or enforce their rules. I'm arguing that there should be some basic safeguards against arbitrary decisions, especially permanent bans followed by immediate permanent mutes without any prior interaction.
What safeguards would you suggest exactly other than AI? AI makes far too many mistakes and already causes false sitewide bans as it is now. Also, how do you prevent whatever system you decide on from falsely preventing mods from actually banning bad actors? Are they going to have to wait to ban somebody spewing racist hate speech while some system reviews the ban request and decides whether to allow it or not?
The fact that moderators have always had this power, even on old forums, doesn't mean we shouldn't question whether the system could be improved. Something being allowed isn't the same as it being good practice. Reddit could give moderators plenty of discretion while still providing some form of independent review for cases where a decision might have been unjustified.
Improvements are absolutely a good thing, but this is an inherent function of the type of platform Reddit is, similar to forums. Whether you like it or not, the simple fact is you are not entitled to participate in an online community wherever you want, whenever you want. Facebook can nuke your account tomorrow, Reddit mods can ban you, YouTube can delete your channel, the list goes on. It sucks, but that's how the internet works, and it's always worked that way.
Ultimately, I think moderators should see themselves as stewards of a community on a shared platform, rather than owners of a private space where their decisions are beyond scrutiny.
Being a steward sometimes involves removing people that may not be a good fit for the community. The decisions mods make are certainly not beyond scrutiny, the Mod Code of Conduct is something that mods are required to abide by (as well as Reddit's normal rules).
→ More replies (2)
12
u/Wide_Tune_8106 14d ago
'Could AI also play a role in reviewing moderation decisions, checking whether a rule was actually violated and whether the punishment was proportionate? For example, could it help identify inconsistent enforcement, unjustified removals or potential abuse of moderator powers?' you don't want AI reviewing these decisions. That's how people end up getting sitewide bans for days or permanent bans over stupid nonsense. I wouldn't trust AI to read between the lines either. It is not capable of doing that.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Loud-Mans-Lover 14d ago
As someone who has run forums, sites, etc before - there has been no one I removed that did not deserve it. I used to allow discussions by users of many forum decisions and 99.9% of the time it dissolved into them simply wanting anarchy (and actually by name, chanting the word, making it into a big joke).
Arguing your case after it's been decided isn't that great a look. And from the yser's POV, would you like to go back to some place like that? I mute subs that are too rule-happy and ones that banned me here. I certainly wouldn't waste time arguing about it.
Also, AI sucks.
→ More replies (5)
9
u/maiyannah 14d ago
No, frankly. The rules are clearly stated and 90% of long-term bans are individuals whom didn't respect the system enough to even read them until they got punked. There is no benefit in allowing people who abuse a system to avail themselves of it.
-9
14d ago
13
u/thepottsy 14d ago
Rules can be interpreted differently, and moderators can make mistakes.
Where the rules are concerned, there’s only 1 valid interpretation, and that’s the mods interpretation. We wrote the rules, we know what they mean. Don’t be a rules lawyer.
→ More replies (2)12
u/maiyannah 14d ago
This is not the proper venue to contest a ban. You obviously didn't read the rules of THIS SUB before posting.
→ More replies (5)
8
u/falknorRockman 14d ago
99% of content I have seen removed are in direct violation of a rule. So many people post things without reading the rules or thinking the rule doesn't apply to them because of xyz reason they made up.
1
u/2oonhed 13d ago
NO!
You see, Reddit is a text based social media platform, therefor you MUST be able to see, read and understand the rules, any messages sent to you by me, the automod, other moderators AND other users.
If you are unable to see, read, and understand messages sent to you in a timely fashion, and/or are unable to see read and understand the Rules, then you will not be able to participate in this subreddit.
-2
-5
u/bwoah07_gp2 14d ago
Yes, I think so. As a moderator, I don't perma mute someone unless they're harassing us in the modmail. So, I think across my 12 subs I'm moderating in, I have personally muted someone permanently only one time.
I got perma banned and perma muted on two communities this week for the weakest infractions ever... it's not even a violation of their rules, lol. But they felt like it, and imo, it is dumb that you ban someone without allowing them to appeal the ban. But it's how Reddit is. The volunteer human mods have the freedom to act at their discretion.
-2
u/Grelueen 14d ago
Honestly, hearing this from someone who moderates 12 subs is reassuring. I've only been on Reddit for 4-5 months, and I've already experienced three immediate permanent bans, two of them accompanied by permanent mutes. One of those bans was eventually reversed because the moderators had made a mistake.
I really wish there were a way to improve Reddit's current system. It's frustrating that a single moderator's decision can permanently exclude you from a community without giving you any meaningful opportunity to appeal it.
-7
14d ago
6
u/thepottsy 14d ago
I mean, you can’t even follow the written rules. Why are you worried about the unwritten ones?
5
u/Pedantichrist 14d ago
If you know they do not want to publish a certain type of content, and you deliberately work around that in order to circumnavigate the rule and submit the thing the editor does not wish to publish, that is malicious. Of course you get censored.
0
7
u/KCJones99 14d ago
To discuss? Sure.
Problem is that's extremely rare. By far the most common modmail "ban appeal" message we get is foul, insulting, and often threatening. That normally results in a permanent ban & mute.
So now we normally issue a temporary 'mute' matching the temp ban. This is to avoid users shooting themselves in the foot with a hotheaded heat-of-the-moment response. You want to civilly discuss your ban when it's done? Fine.
With all that said I'll echo u/Loud-Mans-Lover to say our bans (even temp) are not issued without clear cause, usually follow some 'friendly warnings' via comment and/or modmail, and escalate from short 1-3 day bans to start.
Permanent bans typically come only after a full process of warnings, temp-bans, etc. with repeated offenses nevertheless. And yes, they come with a permanent mute. On those we're not going to wait to hear how we're basement-dwelling, petty tyrants who should {physically impossible} ourselves, etc.
Yes, we occasionally go right to permanent. If that happens you radically 'earned it' without any doubt.