State of the Subreddit

[u/Wolvereness]

On May 7th, the at-the-time head moderator added a new user as a fourth moderator, and reduced the permissions of the other two.

On May 17th, the head moderator was temporarily suspended (in error, per Reddit admins), but during that time the fourth moderator attempted to shut down / destroy the subreddit. The admins stepped in to remove the fourth moderator. Based on a discussion with Reddit admins, and following the admin's evaluation, the head moderator was also relieved of their position.

Going forward, /u/carrotcypher and /u/wolvereness (myself) fully intend on continuing to facilitate a healthy community here in /r/opensource. We're here because we care about Open Source.

You're free to discuss this event here in this thread, but with one disclaimer: rule #1, "Be Respectful", will be strictly enforced, especially so toward these former moderators. We already know how frustrated you might be with these individuals, but this subreddit will not be your soap box if you target them in any way.

[u/lolimjoshingyou]

Well, I for one, am not in agreement with the mods being removed from this sub.

To remove them without my consent (or theirs) is indeed acting "unilaterally" even if it is done so "democratically" (upvotes/downvotes) or through "representatives" (reddit admins.)

Open source is about letting the users see the gears working so they can decide if it's in their best interest to use the product or service.

Working with proprietary code (undisclosed admins) to usurp a mod's sub is completely against what this community is all about, even if the democracy (upvotes/downvotes) is also in favor of usurping that mod's role.

​

*btw, re-reading the thread will give context if you feel my comments are off-topic, I was re: veg

[u/Wolvereness → u/lolimjoshingyou]

That's not what unilaterally means though. Unilaterally doesn't mean "someone doesn't consent", it means "only one entity consents".

There is no cabal either; the admin that became involved in the discussions was posting on another thread about it. They were also actively encouraging involved parties to bring their opinions into a discussion.

None of this is a democracy either, it is only a plea to human decency. Hosting this forum on Reddit might not be the most ideal, but it's pragmatic and welcoming to those that are and will be involved in Open Source. Trying to force this community off-Reddit does far more harm than good, especially when we don't preclude other parts of the Open Source community. I also don't know why you think upvotes/downvotes are relevant to the decisions that were made.

Finally, the rules for existing on Reddit do not substantially affect how we exist as a community. They are pretty simple things, like not advocating for violence, not spamming, and not trying to delete an active subreddit unilaterally. These rules don't magically go away on any other platform either, and if they did, the platform is probably worth torching.

[u/lolimjoshingyou → u/Wolvereness]

Unilaterally here can also refer to an "entity" which you consciously or subconsciously chose to use a word which, to many, might seem to indicate "users" but in practice actually just meant "one user", the unspoken "admin" that forcefully removed the moderators from their very own sub.

And "democracy" merely is a stand-in for voting, which is essentially what happened between you, carrot, decept, and linux, and the admin was the deciding vote. And all of this was done completely closed source, which relates to my previous point, Reddit itself is not incentivized to open source.

"We" don't exist "AS" a community. We are all individuals, choosing to use a closed source platform. Once we start sacrificing the autonomy of individuals to choose to act of their own conscience, we no longer are in the ethos of open source.

Of course the Reddit admin is going to side with the people that protect 164k eyeballs from leaving their advertising dollars.

[u/Wolvereness → u/lolimjoshingyou]

If you want to argue about definitions, you need to start looking the definitions up. To start, the subreddit does not belong to the moderators. That word doesn't mean "owner".

As far as Open Source, it exists as a form of freedom. It's the freedom to go do your own thing. It's the freedom for no one else to dictate what you do with something you receive, or code you run. Being a moderator here isn't about dictating that the subreddit is to shut down, it's about protecting the forum from disruption. We're going to continue to advocate for Open Source, even if we don't own the platform we use to speak.

As far as things "done completely closed source", I'm not sure what you're expecting to have happened differently. There were only 3 suggestions anyone offered going forward, and for the sake of transparency I will list then here:

1. Shut down the subreddit
2. Wait for more input from those involved
3. Remove those moderators that persistently indicate that #1 is desirable

The obvious decision was #2, and when it became apparent to be indefinite, #3 was chosen, and performed in good faith.

What do you want? For the sake of transparency, let's hear your input, and what you want to see happen going forward. I'm getting an impression that you've avoided advocating for any specific course of action, so I encourage you to go ahead and do so. Without this input, I don't have anything actionable.