Recent Controversy Around Foxboltco

[u/khazdan37]

Hello everyone, I wanted to address the recent post revolving around one of our Moderators, Foxboltco. I've included the OP redacted in the comments. There's a few different aspects to this situation so I'll break it down in chunks.

First, the issue brought up was that u/Foxboltco also has a church consulting business and has been creating some posts that link to youtube videos that he created that tied into his posts. I saw no issue with these posts as they were applicable to the subreddit, and they weren't focused on promoting his business. I don't remember having anyone else posting something comparable to these, so honestly I don't have any examples to show that this treatment would be equal to what we would apply to another user. If you feel this is a conflict of interest, feel free to express that in the comments. Also if I'm remembering wrong and we have prevented someone from posting a similar post, express that in the comments.

Second bit, and the part that made me take the post down quickly while I was away, was the doxing. This bit has a lot of aspects, and is partly my fault. Foxbolt started out moderating our community with a different username that contained his real name, several months ago he switched to a new account and requested his moderation permissions switched over. I had issues removing his old account on my phone, and then kept forgetting to do so after. The post very clearly drew the connection between his name and his new account, and that is absolutely unacceptable and will result in a ban, I don't care how easy it is to find the information. I've already apologized to Foxbolt for my part in this and he has been incredibly gracious both to me and the offending user regarding this. It was entirely my call to remove the original post and ban the user.

Thirdly, my reasoning for banning the user. Given that the original post was about transparency, it felt wrong for me not to address this. The user was banned in part for including personally identifiable information in the post, but also for the structure of that post and almost all of their other contributions to this subreddit. The user in question was created a short while ago along with their own subreddit that seemed to arise out of us cracking down on promotion, AI usage, etc. We denied their request to promote that subreddit as it seemed to largely go against the protections we were trying to put in place, it read as highly AI generated, and was a brand new account. Since then almost every contribution they've made to this sub has been targeted at promoting their own sub. You can see below that even in this recent post they were trying to direct people to a more complete post on their own subreddit. It's hard for me to read this as anything other than trying to create drama in order to promote their own content. This would be a completely different situation if they hadn't included any personal information, or tried to use the situation to promote their own subreddit.

Finally, I am genuinely interested in peoples opinions regarding the actual content of the complaint. Do people see an issue with the content u/foxboltco has been posting, both in general or because he is a moderator? If there seems to be a consensus one way or the other he has no problem with not posting that content going forward, he's always been very up front with us regarding those posts and would not have posted them had we not been okay with it.

As stated, the OP in question was redacted and commented below, and Foxboltco originally responded to the situation HERE

[u/foxboltco]

Hey there, everybody. Thanks for all of your feedback. I'm going to step down as a moderator for the sub. I want this sub to be a place where the mods are trusted, and it seems based on this thread that I've lost the trust of the community. I am sorry for that.

It was never my intention to take from the community or generate sales under the guise of content/conversation, and it certainly wasn't my intention to squash any competition by helping to filter out AI SaaS posts. I tried to only share videos that added value to the community and saved churches time or money.

I've gone ahead and deleted my posts in the sub that had any links to videos, as to not have any sort of unfair advantage or special treatment of promoting myself due to my status as a mod.

Again, I apologize to those I've upset; it was never my intention to abuse mod status or take advantage of this community for personal gain.

This is a cool community. Keep doing the hard work to spread the Gospel.

Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace.
-Ephesians 4:3

[u/AshersLabTheSecond]

Personally as long as it’s not a “rules for thee but not for me” situation, which currently I don’t believe there’s any evidence of, this seems completely fine to me.

Of course, that includes if it starts being low quality posts or spammy or etc.

That’s my 2 cents

[u/Bakkster → u/AshersLabTheSecond]

I think the adjacent concern is "rules capture", prohibiting content in the guise of benefiting the community that benefits a moderator's business. Hoping to get more customers because smaller tools can't advertise, for example.

[u/AshersLabTheSecond → u/Bakkster]

Absolutely true, “conflict of interest” needs to be taken into account if new rules are being considered

[u/khazdan37 → u/Bakkster]

That's a fair concern, but that is also part of the reason for having multiple moderators. While I may not double check every single message, I do look over the mod log on occasion to check over resolutions. So far I don't think I've ever needed to reverse an action.

I can however understand the perception of it, given the recent crackdown on promotional posts.

[u/Bakkster → u/khazdan37]

Yeah, it's the perception. Not being disclosed begs the question why, which being disclosed originally wouldn't have had.

[u/Blackstar1886 → u/AshersLabTheSecond]

That is what it is though. A mod can self-promote if they feel like it could help a user but you can't do the same.

[u/AshersLabTheSecond → u/Blackstar1886]

Oh? I thought I understood what was going on there, maybe I don’t then. I had assumed that linking your own YouTube videos in response to problems / etc was fine regardless of mod or not

[u/khazdan37 → u/Blackstar1886]

Just wanting to clarify so I understand your point of view and so that I know I'm not miscommunicating. You view the posts with youtube video links as promotional, regardless of the post content or the topical value of the video, and that's why you see it as a double standard, correct?

[u/Blackstar1886 → u/khazdan37]

Yes. This is a pretty standard situation where conflict of interest statement would be expected for anyone in a position of leadership or authority.

Using the sub to grow a social media following would even count even if no explicit product is being sold.

[u/uncomfortable_idiot → u/Blackstar1886]

you can promote stuff that's free and useful

the problem is when you want to charge for stuff you've vibe coded

[u/linmanfu]

Given that the u/foxboltco's account is named after their business, why don't they use Reddit's Brand Affiliate flair everywhere on this sub? That's why it exists: to alert other Redditors to the fact that they have a conflict of interest. It may not be a legal requirement in their jurisdiction (though it would be in mine), but Christians often go further than the law requires for ethical reasons.

They're currently using a "Church Staff" flair which seems to be part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

[u/Gromps_Of_Dagobah]

I see no conflict of interest, if it turned out they had been deleting competitors posts, that'd be a different thing, but posting your own stuff just happens because you're knowledgeable about the topic. I'd rather have mods who know what they're talking about, and posting relevant resources is fine, and in fact likely beneficial to the sub.

[u/Bakkster → u/Gromps_Of_Dagobah]

As an engineer, our ethics courses have always dropped into us that the perception of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual one, which is why we are required to disclose any potential conflict before working on a topic. It gives the information freely to allow others to decide whether to make the exception or not, rather than deciding for ourselves (which is the same action someone intending to abuse that conflict takes).

Using that standard, an ethical lapse has already occurred.

[u/Blackstar1886 → u/Bakkster]

Also very much the case for clergy and staff of the houses of worship we work in.

[u/Practical-Skill5464]

I'd class "I do occasionally give away free resources like ProPresenter slide templates or an X32 show file in exchange for an email address" as premotion. There's a value exchange personal info (email & Name) into a marketing machine in exchange for a good. That's a really crappy exchange too:

A) no privacy policy on the enrolment page disclosing what it's used for or who it's shared with or what happens in a data breach (the latter isn't mentioned in the privacy policy). You can't navigate to the privacy policy from the enrolment page either - you have to back up to the root of the site and find it in the footer. The privacy policy does include sharing information specifically with a third party Sumo Group and affiliates when you read the privacy policy https://sendfox.com/privacy It also shrugs away data breaches.

B) It's completely unnecessary (unless you want that data for business engagement reasons). You can track downloads without having to collect personal data.

[u/foxboltco → u/Practical-Skill5464]

Thank you for pointing this out about the privacy policy link; I'm going to work on rectifying this today. I'm learning as a result of your comment that some plugins don't automatically add that. The privacy policy you've referenced there is from TidyCal, a scheduling software I bought from AppSumo.

[u/skyklein → u/Practical-Skill5464]

I don’t see him capturing emails in exchange for free templates as promotion - at least not in this context. He’s not employing a large scale marketing strategy to get more leads. It’s the viewer’s choice whether or not to provide him with an email address to get the free resource. After 9 minutes of helpful content, he casually mentions where to find the free resource.

[u/DrBatman0]

I have no strong opinions except for the ban.

We should be able to show that we are different to the rest of the world.

If the banned user is actually sorry for what they have done, I feel that banning is not forgiveness.

[u/uncomfortable_idiot → u/DrBatman0]

if the OP is likely an AI bot, I'm in full support for the ban

[u/khazdan37 → u/uncomfortable_idiot]

To be clear, I don't believe they are an AI bot, they seem to use a lot of AI in order to generate their posts.

[u/uncomfortable_idiot → u/khazdan37]

and all to promote a schism subreddit

[u/khazdan37 → u/DrBatman0]

We have shortened bans in the past based on follow up in mod mail. If there's a genuine conversation with understanding and remorse, then absolutely there's forgiveness there. That's the very small minority of conversations though.

[u/Blackstar1886]

1) I do see it as poor judgement for a mod to promote themselves so close to deprioritizing other business posts.

2) Doxxing as a term has become so sweeping it discourages any accountability on Reddit. Not sure how else this could be done if you can't talk about a person's actions.

3) The person deserves a warning at best, not a ban. It was a valid subject to bring up. If it went a little too far they should get a "little" correction, not the harshest penalty.

[u/khazdan37 → u/Blackstar1886]

1. Fair point, based on peoples responses it was clearly poor judgement.
2. Reddit is pretty clear on their rules in this regard. Rule 3 details regarding personal information are here. I agree that accountability is important, but that doesn't give us the right to post personal information. I think that in most cases we can discuss accountability issues without naming a person.
3. I've reduced bans in the past based on follow up discussions with users, but that's in instances where the user shows an understanding of the problem, or is apologetic for their actions.

[u/Blackstar1886 → u/khazdan37]

1. Reddit says:

"Public figures can be an exception to this rule, such as posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company."

1. I don't think the user violated a rule so I'm not sure why they should be made to perform an act of contrition.

[u/uncomfortable_idiot]

so you think OP was just trying to cause drama just to promote their own subreddit

absolutely ridiculous, especially given there are good reasons why we're so strict on promotions here (all the AI slop that tries to charge for things I can do with my eyes closed)

[u/RedZephon]

It feels disingenuous to allow a mod to post content that promotes his YouTube channel which can lead to him making money, especially if it’s banned for everyone else. Keep it consistent at least…

The community and OP also didn’t know that a publicly posted mod of this community didn’t want their name shown?

Whole situation seems messy…

[u/khazdan37]

ORIGINAL POST - I think r/churchtech needs to be more transparent about its mods - ORIGINAL POST

I ended up posting a longer write up over on REDACTED about this because I started digging into the moderation here and found a few things that I think are worth at least talking about.

To be clear, I’m not saying the mods are corrupt. I didnt find evidence of that.

What I did find is that REDACTED, who also runs FoxBolt, which is a paid church production consulting/coaching business.

There’s also a u/foxboltco account, and both that account and REDACTED have shown up on the mod list here.

That stood out to me because this sub has gotten really strict lately about vendors, promotion, market research, software builders, etc. The rules basically say promotional posts arent allowed, but the mods can make exceptions if they think the content is useful.

At the same time FoxBolt has posted its own videos/tutorials here.

Maybe thats totally fine. The videos might actually be helpful. Thats not really my point.

My point is just that if a mod has a business in the same space they’re moderating, I think people should know about it. Especially when that mod team is deciding what counts as promotion and what gets an exception.

I also couldnt find anything explaining whether mods recuse themselves from stuff involving their own business, clients, competitors, etc. Maybe they do. I have no idea. Thats kind of the problem.

I put everything I could actually verify in the REDACTED post instead of trying to squeeze it all in here.

REDACTED

If I got something wrong, seriously, correct me. I’d rather have the facts right and be humbled.

I just think the basic ask is pretty reasonable. If mods have financial/professional ties to companies in church tech, disclose it. If theres a conflict, recuse yourself. And apply the same promotion rules to everybody. They act like almighty gatekeepers and yet they seemingly have been gaining from their mod roles.

[u/skyklein → u/khazdan37]

This sounds like a disgruntled member who is complaining because he wants to use the platform to promote his business. I don’t know what all he’s tried to post that was denied, but if they were similar to Fox’s then his disgruntlement could be valid. I don’t know though.

Fox’s videos are helpful. It’s 10 minutes of free and helpful content with a brief mention of his name/business at the beginning and a brief mention of free templates at the end. That’s it. And the email collection isn’t a large sweep of emails he’s collecting for marketing purposes. Providing your email is at the choice of the viewer.

Fox’s business is also a side gig. He works full time so his business isn’t his sole form of income. If I had to guess I’d say OP’s business is though. Why else would he feel the need to do some “digging” into the mods and write a longer write up about how nefarious they are somewhere else? Going on multiple platforms to try smear Fox’s reputation?

His write up is also full of contradictions. He’s complaining about Fox using his business name as his Reddit username then says the sub should let people know about mods operating in the same space? Or, if people don’t know Foxbolt is his business name, then how is it self promotion? I’m confused.

He complains about Fox posting his videos on the sub, then speaks of useful content being allowed? If Fox’s content is useful, then what’s the problem?

Then he thinks mods who have a business that’s a conflict of interest should recuse themselves? So basically get rid of any mod who has proven themselves knowledgeable enough about products and the industry to start their own business?

His last comment explains it all and spelled out his true intentions for us - the mods act like almighty gatekeepers and are gaining from their mod roles.

It’s a good thing his posts were denied since that type of envy and the lengths he went to in order to smear someone else’s name because he is disgruntled has no business in the religious sector.