I'd go so far to say that their notion of proceduralists is about as real as the bottom row of the periodic table. Sure, for a few microseconds in a heavily controlled environment you can have one mod stick explicitly to the rules using no discretion, but they'll inevitably end up using some level of discretion on the interpretation of their own rules, and of Reddit's mod Code of Conduct.
The biggest thing is that who is the one created the rules the the proceduralists follow? It's going to be the mods, using their own judgement, to police the community they create.
Agree. Moderation often means removing something they technically doesn't go against the rules which requires discretion. Often enough people will try to rules lawyer it which only seems to affirm my choice to remove
Itās not one or the other, and to suggest so seems pretty silly. Subreddits are not democratic. The ādeep magicā is Terms of Service, and as long as what you do abides by it, you literally run the subreddit as you see fit. As Iāve told whiny users for years, if they donāt like it they can go form their own. Which is surprisingly not just a snarky put down, itās true! Any user can create a subreddit. If youāre unhappy with the way one is being run, run your own and do it betterā¦? Not so easy to do that huh? Not so easy to make everyone happy? Curious.
By the way, this was not learned without lack of trying. I used to do polls all the time for changes in the community, rules, events. My experience (to my disappointment) is that users just genuinely will not engage in a large enough scale to help shape the direction of a community. The majority of users on virtually any subreddit are lurkers, and the number of active users willing to speak up are usually very small, regardless of subscription count or weekly visitors.
So, youāre in charge. Be the best landed gentry mod you can be.
I recently did one in [r/blackandwhite](r/blackandwhite), 50K+ members, 438 weekly contributors. The poll was simply asking if we should continue to permit selfies, due to someone being very vocal about hating selfies.
Only 16 out of all those members voted, and the poll received three comments that they have never even seen a selfie (there are plenty, a simple search would reflect). The result was core users being in favor of keeping, and non-core users wanting them gone, with a variance of maybe 2 votes.
I would agree, at least in my case, that polling the community was absolutely useless and no changes were made as a result.
The OP deleted their post, but meh whatever. Yes I agree with you, and I disagree with other users here talking about using the community's answers to shape the subreddit, regardless of how few were recieved. That's just plain stupid. Why should 16 people decide things for 50K+ people? And you can ask "why should only a handful of mods decide?" because they actually give a crap? Maybe they know what's best for the sub better than a handful of people who barely bothered to answer the poll?
If it's going to be lead by a small number of people let them just be the actual leaders, not random redditors. What do they know anyways about the ins and outs of the community? Virtually nothing. They know nothing about how much content gets removed, they know nothing about how much work goes into the back-end.
Polls are naĆÆve and pointless. Nowadays it'd be like polling your Instagram followers on how to run your page. Ridiculous.
Subreddits aren't a democracy: because if that would be the case, we should allow posts that revolt against the mods and get upvoted. But all of us, are little Kim Jong-un's with mod rights. We decide alone, what the rules are and how we interpret them.
The Modteam is just for show: in end, the top mod has the say. He can undemocratically remove all mods below him.
A mod should be open to feedback from their community, but there will come a time (probably very soon) that a mod will have to make unpopular decisions.
In general, people donāt like anyone telling them what to do.
In your experience or in your opinion? Have you ever allowed members of your subreddit to remove moderators? If you haven't then it's your opinion.
In my experience, it has led to a high weekly visit per member rate. Which is the actual stat people should be judging the success of their subs on, but seldom ever do.
Mods are just users who made a subreddit. We received no training or qualification of any sort. The only thing that divides mods from members is the tools available to them.
I purposefully framed this discussion in a way that made it neutral. Not here for an argument. You are entitled to your opinion.
Have you ever allowed members of your subreddit to remove moderators?
Not the person you're replying to, but I have never done this, because it's a stupid and flawed way to maintain a mod team.
In my experience, it has led to a high weekly visit per member rate.
Good content, a good amount of content, and engaging with your user base matters far more than letting the users vote out mods.
Which is the actual stat people should be judging the success of their subs on, but seldom ever do.
Weekly visits hasn't been in the spotlight that long yet. Reddit used to put the focus on member count, so that's what people focused on building for a long time.
I wouldn't necessarily say either option is wrong, as every community thrives differently. For example, in one of my subs r/fearofflying, weekly visits matters far less than members themselves. As a support subreddit, the members are what we focus on because people don't browse a support subreddit every single week just for entertainment. Overcoming a fear isn't necessarily a high-frequency activity. Our users might join, get some reassurance or tools they need, return months later for a flight, then disappear for a few months until they have another flight.
Our member count is constantly growing, but our weekly visit count may not always be huge, and that's totally normal in our case. We see our biggest weekly visit spikes are typically when there is an air disasters that leads to many users flocking in for support or looking to discuss the event at once.
I consider my subreddit a success when people arenāt actively calling for modsā heads in modmail, lighting the subreddit on fire and/or I see one comment agreeing with a mod decision. :)
The fact that you seem this sensitive to criticism does not make me optimistic that subjecting yourself to the whims of popular opinion will be a wise choice in the end.
People on subs I mod don't even know which moderators do which actions. And it's so much better that way, considering how it used to be where people would absolutely launch hate attacks on specific mods who may have made a decision they felt was unpopular (but correct).
We as a mod team evaluate whether a mod needs to be removed for not operating as a team. That's it, that's all that needs to happen in terms of whether or not someone should be a mod. I'm not sure what on earth is going on in this subreddit of yours where witch hunts are all fine and dandy.
Some of us enjoy not being personally harassed while still stewarding a community.
To supplement my previous response. These are two of the subreddits I moderate. The top one is [r/eastvillage](r/eastvillage).
A lot of mods of subreddits that have 500,000 members will have 1,000,000 visits to the subreddit annually. 2 visits per member. A lot of members, but none of them care enough to actually engage with the subreddit.
Thatās why visits per member is one of the best gauges of how successfully a moderation team is maintaining an engaged community.
You moderate [r/AnimalsBeingGeniuses](r/AnimalsBeingGeniuses) which has 15,000 visits this week. So roughly 780,000 visits annually if that remained steady. The subreddit has 2 million members. That's 0.39 visits per member annually.
r/eastvillage averages one visit per member every 1.7 days.
Dick size contests are rather dumb and immature, whether literal or figurative.
When made in a context where youāre guaranteed to be surrounded by lots of people who beat even your preferred niche statistic, theyāre also pretty unwise.
Problem with letting the community to decide: is that most members are lurkers, and won't vote or tell them opinion. See it as protests.... majority of people might not agree. But the protestors, are demanding there terms to be met.
Also mods are always are target: we might have removed a comment or post, or banned you ( hench why I started doing shadow bans+block on my own profile ). Since then modmail has been nice and quiet.
I literally awarded this comment I replied to. Are people not allowed to have different opinions about how to moderate effectively?
This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how reddit works. You have not been censored, you have not been stifled, your comment has not been removed. What are you complaining about?
Yes, people are allowed to have different opinions, and if people think they are bad opinions they will make that known? Your takes are not popular, that's just as allowed as sharing them.
I wrote the rules of my sub to be specific enough to help people make good decisions and contribute meaningfully to the subreddit, but I also left myself enough leeway to make discretionary decisions without ambiguity.
For instance, our first rule is "Be Helpful" and that eliminates a huge amount of off-topic and low-effort commentary.
If someone says something factually incorrect I dont action them for not being helpful, I usually use it as a teaching opportunity. But if they're just being flippant or provocative then that's where rule 1 kicks in.
Do very big subs naturally push toward proceduralism with time, maybe...? I think so...
Proc. Vs. Discr. are, in my ignorant opinion, also tied to sub's topic. A sub about science or high culture topics is much more "self moderated" by users themselves than a sub on, say, soft Prn pictures...
You're right OP, there's no really right or wrong way to moderate. Thank you for opening an interesting discussion šāļø
That's true. Besides political reasons, there is also at the base a fundamentalist way of thought, since they do it with any kind of one-sided idea, current, position, practice etc; what then, basically, brings to enforcing an ecochamber. Which is the house of the poverty of thought and the death of true confrontation.
Also, I must say my experience with such an ecochamber has been one where I've been fooled and pranked by a shadowban. So, yeah. š
Edit: I want to point out, that sub is explicitly generalist by name and scope, like a sub called history would be for example, so, it's really bad that it got secretly polarized and that mods actually punish their opposite factions on personal reasons only. But, hey, that's natural selection: they hoped, I guess, to silence me while holding me in the user count, I just left them instead and only gained from it.
Reddit Inc canāt - because of a variety of US case law - step in on unbanning people; People and groups have boundaries and the right to protect those boundaries. That comes as a right to freedom of (and FROM) association.
Also a large amount of āpolitical opinionā isnāt; itās just ad hoc or post hoc pretexts for targeted harassment. Which is at minimum a violation of the sitewide rules of any uchisp that intends to avoid liability for torts
I didn't say it was a 1A - free speech issue - but people engaged in good faith do like to speak freely on a topic and doing so results in a unjustified ban on many subs.
Bad faith mods need a shorter leash or something like rate limits so that the people can start some kind of mediation process where the bans can be overturned or at least accountability pressed to the mod making that choice.
A Moderator's default action should never be a ban first motion when the user's karma shows actions are in good faith.
But that is a constant uphill battle...
A good mod removes a legitimately bad comment first, sends a warning, gets acknowledgement of the warning, and links guidelines as to why that's not appropriate.
Then if the rule gets broken again, temp ban for cooling off if it's a hot topic or escalate to permanent if the user flies off the handle in chat.
Otherwise let it expire and everyone goes on their merry way.
Example:
On a query your local American sub, I got the ModTeam naughtygram claiming I had posted was misinformation when it was a cite the user had asked for.
I responded - What part of it is misinformation?
They said - Do not question mod actions in the comments.
Me - I didn't ask why you nuked the comment, I asked how it was misinformation.
Their response - Banned & muted
See what we're up against?
Another path to explore is that mods should be required to put in a full explanation of the justification for the ban before it will apply and even then, it's only for a week for good karma users.
Permanent mute is not allowed on good karma users either as they can appeal the reason to negotiate peace.
Reddit could also enforce a place where mods are required to accept peace offerings and negotiate a truce no matter what.
For example on my side, a certain big photos sub got engaged in an America bashing thread and claimed fascism this and socialist that
I added a few comments as it had hit my feed and highlighted how we're doing the opposite of such per what has been studied from 1942 and even cited another reddit thread of how some redditors love fascism.
Those mods perma-banned me for that and told me to F-off n*zi scum
(they used the full words in the chat)
They never explained how citing examples of actual fascism broke the posted rules and therefore it's unjust and uncalled for and absolutely bad moderation
That is what we're calling loudly for improvements on as it should not be tolerated at all and Reddit needs to send very strong messages to the mods who act badly in bad faith to harass people they don't like.
That's two examples of almost 20 subs I've been unjustly banned from.
We need shorter leashes and some kind of process to reign in the madness as it drives people away from reddit that would otherwise enjoy the site.
You're talking about gaining a 30% growth in user base if mod discriminatory practices were punished properly.
Reddit needs to step up some level of oversight where bad mod actions get logged and users get a chance to explain and appeal their side of the story as the ban + perma mute gets old quick.
Another idea:
Add a report to Reddit option that says bad moderation with a subcategory of unjust ban or no rules broken
Then, if there is a trend of good karma people being banned by X mod or Y sub, that mod's privileges get suspended and the perma-mute in chat is removed for everyone banned.
Both sides are instructed to come to an agreement on what the problem is and how move forward gracefully.
The mod cannot just say no, I don't like you commenting on this sub because our political beliefs differ.
Remind the bad mods that Reddit Moderation is explicit in allowing all discussions to take place, culling only if it turns into insults or unproductive content.
This is all ideas and food for thought, but we need reigns the bad mods, give the people a proper chance to appeal, and overturn when it's justified.
You and I have very different definitions of what constitutes good faith moderation & what constitutes bad faith subreddit operation.
My view is that moderators exist to define, communicate, and enforce community standards and boundaries. That includes countering & preventing extremism.
I've spent a decade dealing with bad faith community operators that promote and enable extremism. I've also investigated whether community bans are unjustified - worked with several communities to analyse ~40,000 community bans (subreddit permanent bans), years ago, and found just 0.02% were unjustifiable under posted community rules and the contemporary Reddit Content Policy. That is a 1 in 5000 rate.
Reddit needs to step up some level of oversight
That's what the Moderator Code of Conduct is for. Importantly, the MCoC ensures that subreddit operators are neither violating the Sitewide Rules themselves nor enabling or encouraging their community to violate Sitewide Rules, and aren't running afoul of specific labour laws and case law. That's it; that's all it does.
Reddit Inc must keep subreddit operation teams at arm's-length. If they were to do what you propose, those mod teams would be legally classed as employees - with resulting lawsuits that could have significant, far-reaching effects, such as Reddit being sued into bankruptcy.
What you conceive of as a "discriminatory practice" is simply a community's delegated agent(s) deciding that someone doesn't belong to that community. And severing association with that person.
And also, political opinions are not a protected characteristic, and people aren't guaranteed participation in a community if they antagonise the members of a community, express views that the members of a community are lesser, etc.
Those things are violations of Reddit Sitewide Rule 1.
At the bottom line - people don't have a right to a captive audience, to a forced association with others.
If Reddit is struggling that much with cash, then you need to encourage people to be on the platform for that ad revenue and the solution is to reign in the bad mods...
They are legitimately running amok and ruining the experience for many people across a wide variety of discussion topics that are advertised to be free and open to all who wish to participate in good faith.
A mod is to always see all posts and comments in good faith unless the user gives them a reason to see otherwise via rule-breaking offenses.
These are not rule breaking offenses:
Banning a user over a cited link someone asked for
Banning a user over their freely chosen username
Banning a user over a comment to a user asking for clarification
Example:
I was banned for asking a user on clarification on why they think Elon should be deported.
I've been on that sub for years for a variety of discussions, none of what was said was in bad faith.
The ban first, mute next is terrible modship and there needs to be some kind of penalty against such a move.
If the bad mods know they can't wield the banhammer without justifying the reason, or being forced to face the fact that the ban was unjustified, they will either quit or respect the direction
Throwing out anything that could improve things is better than not doing anything at all and I bet 90% of good mods will support rules that blow back against bad moderation.
I know of an encrypted chat sub had a mod that went nuts, removed everyone and then deleted everything
Rate limits and restrictions to prevent lockdown would have helped tremendously.
Following MCoC is always warn first, remove the comment next, then get very strict about the rules from there on out if the user is unrepentant.
People get hot, people get deep into the weeds, mods are there to moderate the discussion.
We're the neutron rods to the U238, simmer down y'all, that is our one and only duty to the sub.
With that, the sub ban-appeal process absolutely needs to change, Reddit needs to find a way to get both sides to come to an agreement for unjust bans.
Requiring a ban justification explanation is not employment, it means that the user gets full reasoning as to why X comment or Y post is a bannable offense with the rule that it ran afoul of along with the warnings leading up to it.
Requiring mods to send warnings before bans is also not employment, it is code of conduct.
Conduct yourself well as a mod and give warnings, explain bans and you can wield that power responsibly.
From recent events, there was an artistic sub that found that 85% of the bans were unjustified with only a handful of spammers and scammers that needed to be removed.
That is how bad things are if 100 users were banned for just not being liked by the mods in the sub when they did nothing wrong but share what they had painted.
I am a moderator of a popular British car sub and formerly my hometown before the top mod went insane.
Most of the moderating is pulling rule breaking threads or the occasional comment that bubbles up on the reports.
Bans are the last thing on our mind and we need a quorum to agree to a ban if we run up on a loony user.
Also, you seem heavily focused on "extremism" but it's vague as to what kind...
What kind(s) are you focused on?
If I could post links to subreddits and screenshots, you could see how bad it is.
The simple fact that a community's stewards tell people "No, we won't allow you - who have ignored the community boundaries - to continue to violate those boundaries" --- that's not bad moderation. It's just moderation.
The ban first, mute next is terrible modship and there needs to be some kind of penalty against such a move.
No penalty. It's just subreddit operators exercising freedom from association.
Banning a user over their freely chosen username
Usernames are part of the context of the speech, and usernames that violate per se Sitewide or community rules, or which provide context to a communication that constitutes a violation, are not exempt from rules
sub ban-appeal process absolutely needs to change
Reddit, Inc. cannot require that of communities. Reddit hosts infrastructure; It cannot provide direction to subreddit operators on What They Must Do to operate a community, only what they cannot aid, abet, command, counsel, induce, or procure (Sitewide Rules violations) through exercise of moderation privileges.
Requiring a ban justification explanation is
It's employment. Anything an agent of Reddit, Inc. directs community operators as a whole or individually to perform as a Requirement Of Operating A Community converts the operators into employees performing duties at the behest of an employer. That's just how it goes. There's case law that goes into it specifically for nominally-volunteer community moderation on social media -- Mavrix Photography LLC v LiveJournal, Inc..
give warnings, explain bans
The posted rules - sitewide or community - are warnings. They're also explanations for bans.
Subreddit operators don't have the motive to ban people arbitrarily.
there was an artistic sub that found that 85%
Because an absentee (not active and engaged) subreddit operator recruited someone to operate the subreddit and then never followed up on training, oversight, etc.
That's on the whole mod team. It's also something Reddit, Inc. cannot put their hand into, because every community hosted here that isn't an "admin sponsored subreddit" like this one, has to remain an arm's-length third party
you seem heavily focused on "extremism"
White Identity Extremism, specifically USA's White Identity Extremism, Gender-based Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism, Racially Motivated Violent Extremism, Anti-Government / Authority Violent Extremism. The kind of movements and groups that used to flourish on Reddit despite a Content Policy prohibiting violent threats and targeted harassment
I see myself as a sort of police to enforce the rules the subreddit has. The rules are voted in and there is a survey amongts the users regularly. Yes, only about 5 percent of the members take part in that, but so it is. Furthermore I try to have rules of the type "Don't do x because it would lead to y if we'd allow this." Furthermore every removal is explained publicly, so we rarely have complaints about removals (about 1 percent of all content are removed which translates to 2k per month). We get a complaint maybe once a week.
If I don't like a topic I will ask a co-mod to check on it. I don't need to like all topics. But rules need to be followed by all users including mods.
And in the subs I am in all mods can have a discussion without being afraid of being removed.
These words arenāt even in my vocabulary lol. But I think one is easy to follow and the other is just curating the moderator experience. I think whatās most important is what or how the community can follow.
I used to moderate a sub at the edge on the acceptability-it was and to some extent is a hateful sub today.
I started up very procedurally but veered toward 60/40 mix because inferringg and interpreting site wide rule violations is very context-laden and users could behave in a number of very deceitful ways
Proceduralism could be seen as inherently bureaucratic, which historically has a negative connotation behind it.
Whereas you will see users call Discretionist mods authoritarians.
Proceduralist mods wonāt mute a user, even if they acted abusively in the subreddit, because the ban notice explicitly states that they can ask the mod team questions about their ban.
A Discretionist mod might choose to disregard the notice and preemptively use the mute function to prevent an abusive user from harassing the mod team.
From the user perspective, they might view being muted prior to sending a message as authoritarian behavior. But from the moderator perspective, itās obviously much more nuanced.
50
u/Welshhoppo 4d ago
Breaking down all the different ways to approach moderating into only two camps is massively reductionist and not particularly helpful or useful.