What should the limits be on sub moderators?

submitted by magnora7 from (self.AskSaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]poestal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

i'm so glad your taking measures on this topic. iv'e seen extreme biases from moderators within reddit's neutral subs and extreme cases of nuked comment sections [removed] creating eco chambers or criticizing the subs agenda.

but my question is how can "No removal of good faith and on-topic posts/comments" work when the mods believe that your comment is "negative" or "hate filled"? for instance I criticize say the lbgt community about advocating for children and hormone therapy. obviously it's a heated topic that some strongly believe or disagree with. but it would be based on personal beliefs of it being bigotry and deleting such comments.

also we need to talk about moderators (including yourself) that having a bias monopoly with popular subs could lead to eco chambers within neutral subs or turning into a "spez" moderator that removes and edits comments of wrongful thinking.

[–]magnora7[S] 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I'm glad you see the importance in taking action here, because it is a very big deal. And it would be easy to turn a blind eye, as sites like reddit and voat have, but we've all seen the problems that causes.

but my question is how can "No removal of good faith and on-topic posts/comments" work when the mods believe that your comment is "negative" or "hate filled"?

It all comes down to the pyramid of debate. https://saidit.net/static/debatepyramid.jpg

If you say "I think children having horomone therapy is wrong for moral reasons as well as these other reasons x, y, and z" that is fine, because it does not drag discussion down the pyramid of debate.

However if you say (pardon me) "I think those faggy idiot adults shouldn't convert these retarded children" then that is at the bottom of the pyramid of debate because it's needlessly insult-laden.

So if a sub moderator deletes the first example, there would be problems if they kept doing it. However if the moderator deletes the second example, then that's fine because it's already at the bottom of the pyramid of debate.

So we would police moderators who show a censorship bias against good faith comments (as judged by the pyramid of debate).

It's great all the modlogs are public because that means there are no secret mod actions or secret mod removals. This applies to me too, if I make an action as an admin, it shows up in the modlogs in that sub. For example, here's the mod I mentioned in the OP removing, then me adding my comments, over and over: https://saidit.net/s/Libertarianism/modlog

You can see my admin actions just as well as his mod actions in the modlog, so everyone including myself is accountable in this system. I think this revolutionary public modlog transparency, plus this rule for mods we're discussing now in this thread, combined will be a key part in keeping saidit from failing in the same way reddit did, which got overtaken by highly-polarized little mod fiefdoms on every subreddit.

[–]poestal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

ok this looks very promising.

and what would be the rules for removing or overthrowing an overreaching moderator? three strikes your out? is it a singular moderator that can choose to remove another or some form of moderation hierarchy that will vote to remove such moderators?

[–]magnora7[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

and what would be the rules for removing or overthrowing an overreaching moderator? three strikes your out?

That's how we've been applying the rules to users, so I guess it would make sense to continue that system for the moderators. And every "strike" gets a warning from me with a reason for the strike, in reply to the offending material. In public view.

I think it'd probably be best to let the admins (me and d3rr) act as the judge for moderators, so that way there aren't power struggles between the moderators trying to usurp each other by abusing this system. However any user or moderator can raise the issue with the admins if there are problems, and then we will investigate.

Being a mod comes with responsibilities to the community, and I think this is a system that will keep everyone accountable. It's all out in public view for everyone to see, so there's no crafty "behind closed doors" moderator/admin stuff going on like there is on reddit and voat.

[–]fred_red_beans 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think you and d3rr as the main developers have the right to refuse service to anyone you deem necessary. I think keeping your actions transparent help the saidit community understand your actions whether a user agrees or not. I've only removed one comment so far in my subs for threat of violence. I think your position is right in avoiding sub mods from infiltrating and using the site purely for their own purposes. I think you guys have done a good job so far in trying to keep a balance here. Thanks for that.

[–]magnora7[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, glad to hear from you. I agree it is necessary to prevent mod infiltration. I am glad the transparency is appreciated. I think this move to add this rule will end up being a great safeguard against the mod fiefdoms that ruined reddit, and ensure a good mix of viewpoints and information. Like reddit circa 2007. Thanks for your continued support.