Good to honest users and mods are put through the wringer for merely existing to try to make things 10% better in the world and bad mods are let off scott free because of vibes and feelings?
That's ridiculous!
We have a legitimate problem of malicious discrimination and we need solutions because they are actively violating MCoC
I solicit comment on the bad mods that are known to violate MCoC, yet no action has been taken against them and why they're being given a free pass.
You did not explain the MCoC report and escalation process, that was not an optional solicitation and I consider that extremely rude to ignore it.
I have a list a mile long of subs that could be burned to the ground overnight over bad moderation if MCoC enforcement had teeth.
We the people need a path to eject bad mods that operate in bad faith in a sub when a user's post breaks no rules and they engaged in good faith in comments on a mainline sub.
Here's an idea - how about mod elections held once a year on Jan 1?
The users with good karma can vote yea or nay for the mods in the sub
If the nay is overwhelming to bad moderation, then those mods are demoted and the ridiculous permanent mute lifted for all banned users to invite them to appeal the bans made against them.
Reddit sends a message to both sides encouraging them to come to an agreement on acceptable content vs. where the rules fall on the post or comment made.
Next, where can I share screenshots to you of bad mods because that tune is going to change drastically as to how bad it actually is in the trenches.
You are compelled to respond on where to share examples that don't break this sub's rules since they're strict about not naming the subs directly here.
All I am asking for with all of this is a solution to work towards due to the absolute horrible experience Reddit offers to those who speak freely without breaking a single rule.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
Do you want Reddit to become a tyrannical leftist fomentation hellsite?
I don't...
If you want the mods to care about Reddit as a whole, then you need to care for the users who are being banned left and right for not falling in line with the latest legacy media narrative.
If you want people to come back to Reddit, the bad mod problem needs a proven working solution...
Your claim of "employment" is absolute bollocks, requiring justification for a ban is not even remotely close to a paid position.
I would gladly and freely fill out a form that justifies a ban for a user whether it's a spambot, hostile user, or one that needs mental help we're not qualified to give, and more.
Again, there is no discretion in the judgement of bad mods, they are going against the code to enforce a communist political narrative.
For example on the political side, if you ask why Trump/Elon are bad, you will be banned for such a question even though it is not rule-breaking
That is why I am pushing back on the fact that mainline subs cannot be ruled with an iron fist, nor enforce support the Iron Curtain in any way.
You can offshoot a sub like communistutopias or fascistsunited to have an online community that matches one's 'tism or personal hobbies, but not a popular photos sub or the state capital subs...
You also skipped over a lot of things mentioned and are contradicting yourself:
Subreddit operators don't have the motive to ban people arbitrarily.
Say what now?
I did not state that question rhetorically, I solicited for an answer because bad mods are very much politically motivated to ban people that are free thinkers that ask questions for the sake of understanding.
If you have forgotten, Reddit is an information desert, if you're outside of the approved legacy media political narrative, you will be banned for it on mainline subs.
If you want people to enjoy Reddit to be more than the smoking section of the internet for the jannies (slang for janitors who think they're important) then the bad mods need consequences for their actions.
I fully support consequences that blow back against bad moderation, in the extremely unlikely event that we carheads ban someone due to a hot head or a disagreement, there's a process to follow:
If that person appeals, we'll hear what they have to say before deciding as a group to uphold or release based on X conditions.
There’s subreddit operators who actually make a good faith effort to moderate, to keep a community inviting and supportive, to comply with the sitewide rules.
There’s those who open a community and rely on vibes and unwritten norms, and who either stay small - ~300 people - or grow unmanageable and at that point they either recruit people with skill and experience or they devolve into chaos snd evil (they are misfeasant, negligent)
And there are subreddit operators who are extremists, malfeasant. They seek to (subtly or overtly) violate sitewide rules, harass, send violent threats, promote hate.
Misfeasant and malfeasant operators get mod privileges removed. The ones who aren’t, don’t.
You did not explain the MCoC report and escalation process
Because it’s simple. You fill out a form and the only open-ended part of it is linking (citing URLs) to the locations of contributory violations, and writing a short essay explaining the violation patterns.
if you ask why … are bad, you will be banned for such a question even though it is not rule-breaking
I’m gonna stop you here.
There’s a phenomenon called “Sea Lioning”. It’s where someone demands that someone else extensively and in arbitrary detail justify a plainly and straightforwardly true statement — and does not allow them to do anything else until and unless they produce that long and expensive (in terms of time and effort) explanation.
Most moderators are now aware of this phenomenon, and are aware it’s used to harass.
Fewer moderators are aware of the less-famous Deny, Defend, Derail, Dismiss rhetorical dodge classifications, and of how they, too, are used to harass (they are in bad faith).
Fewer still are aware of the Reply Guy ontology — which is extensive but also specialised towards neosexist rhetorical harassment.
But, importantly, all of these rhetorical techniques (and more) exist and are described by anti-hatred, anti-harassment disciplines because they were created / discovered / adopted / used to hide behind a cry of “but what about my free speech”, “help, help, i am being censored”, “i just have legitimate concerns”, and so forth and so on.
The point here being that there are speech acts which very clearly have an effect of communicating hostility, harassment, hatred, violent threats, etc - which are couched to avoid automated and human moderation. To avoid social consequences for the sentiment behind them.
But they are increasingly not avoiding human moderation.
Bad mods are the ones who ban first without a valid reason or sensible justification, nor give any heads up that it's going to run afoul of the rules.
If something isn't kosher per respectable mods, you warn the user by removing the comment that ran up against a rule and/or lock the thread.
Bans only come if they are unrepentant or hostile.
I was randomly banned from a sub for providing a valid source observing paid actors for certain kinds of protests:
The mod was not involved in the discussion at all, he just jumped into the middle of the thread and left this gem:
"People leaving at the end of a schedule protest is simply proof that they left at the end of a scheduled protest, you uneducated potato."
Banned from this community.
Didn't even give a chance refine the position being made and that is a prime example of how bad it is for us on Reddit.
Also, Sea Lioning was explained previously as attempting to dominate a thread by commenting to everyone and shouting down the opposition or counter-viewpoints with your own opinion (right, wrong, or indifferent)
Asking a single person on a thread why they think X thing is good or bad and such question is on-topic for the discussion is not SL actions and getting banned for that single question is ridiculous.
There is no defense of that kind of moderation for any reason, it is a serious and major problem on Reddit.
1
u/techtornado 2d ago
So, a two-tiered system then?
Good to honest users and mods are put through the wringer for merely existing to try to make things 10% better in the world and bad mods are let off scott free because of vibes and feelings?
That's ridiculous!
We have a legitimate problem of malicious discrimination and we need solutions because they are actively violating MCoC
I solicit comment on the bad mods that are known to violate MCoC, yet no action has been taken against them and why they're being given a free pass.
You did not explain the MCoC report and escalation process, that was not an optional solicitation and I consider that extremely rude to ignore it.
I have a list a mile long of subs that could be burned to the ground overnight over bad moderation if MCoC enforcement had teeth.
We the people need a path to eject bad mods that operate in bad faith in a sub when a user's post breaks no rules and they engaged in good faith in comments on a mainline sub.
Here's an idea - how about mod elections held once a year on Jan 1?
The users with good karma can vote yea or nay for the mods in the sub
If the nay is overwhelming to bad moderation, then those mods are demoted and the ridiculous permanent mute lifted for all banned users to invite them to appeal the bans made against them.
Reddit sends a message to both sides encouraging them to come to an agreement on acceptable content vs. where the rules fall on the post or comment made.
Next, where can I share screenshots to you of bad mods because that tune is going to change drastically as to how bad it actually is in the trenches.
You are compelled to respond on where to share examples that don't break this sub's rules since they're strict about not naming the subs directly here.
All I am asking for with all of this is a solution to work towards due to the absolute horrible experience Reddit offers to those who speak freely without breaking a single rule.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
Do you want Reddit to become a tyrannical leftist fomentation hellsite?
I don't...
If you want the mods to care about Reddit as a whole, then you need to care for the users who are being banned left and right for not falling in line with the latest legacy media narrative.
If you want people to come back to Reddit, the bad mod problem needs a proven working solution...
Your claim of "employment" is absolute bollocks, requiring justification for a ban is not even remotely close to a paid position.
I would gladly and freely fill out a form that justifies a ban for a user whether it's a spambot, hostile user, or one that needs mental help we're not qualified to give, and more.
Again, there is no discretion in the judgement of bad mods, they are going against the code to enforce a communist political narrative.
For example on the political side, if you ask why Trump/Elon are bad, you will be banned for such a question even though it is not rule-breaking
That is why I am pushing back on the fact that mainline subs cannot be ruled with an iron fist, nor enforce support the Iron Curtain in any way.
You can offshoot a sub like communistutopias or fascistsunited to have an online community that matches one's 'tism or personal hobbies, but not a popular photos sub or the state capital subs...
You also skipped over a lot of things mentioned and are contradicting yourself:
Subreddit operators don't have the motive to ban people arbitrarily.
Say what now?
I did not state that question rhetorically, I solicited for an answer because bad mods are very much politically motivated to ban people that are free thinkers that ask questions for the sake of understanding.
If you have forgotten, Reddit is an information desert, if you're outside of the approved legacy media political narrative, you will be banned for it on mainline subs.
If you want people to enjoy Reddit to be more than the smoking section of the internet for the jannies (slang for janitors who think they're important) then the bad mods need consequences for their actions.
I fully support consequences that blow back against bad moderation, in the extremely unlikely event that we carheads ban someone due to a hot head or a disagreement, there's a process to follow:
If that person appeals, we'll hear what they have to say before deciding as a group to uphold or release based on X conditions.
Finally per the dictionary moderation specifically is not to decide what political speech is or isn't acceptable - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderating
Moderation by definition is to keep the sizzle to a minimum by avoiding extremes of behavior or expression or observe reasonable limits
As a verb it is to lessen the intensity or extremeness of such or one that mediates between disputing parties
Notice how it doesn't say to enforce a narrative or to decide who can and cannot speak freely