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 →

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

I don't want to have to moderate literally everything on the site by myself

Right. So you don't want a site-wide rule which requires you to work harder. I don't blame you. Which way requires you to work less?

  • allow mods to moderate as they see fit
  • you review every mod action

[–]magnora7[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

No the real options are:

  • let this site get taken over by echo chambers like reddit

  • regulate mod actions a little more tightly, and review reports about it

The first is obviously easier, but we're doing the second because it is the best thing for saidit.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Adjust or reject as you see fit:

Create: /s/SaidItConflicts

Create: link [deleted] to the mod-log for review

Create: "report moderation" button

"Report moderation" button does 3 things:

1) Creates a new text post in /s/SaidItConflicts by /u/reporter (censored or witness)

2) Message notifies /u/reportee (moderator)

3) Text post includes includes links to the [deleted] location within context, the mod-log location, a triple dash, and maybe the [deleted] content.

Anyone who cares can surf that sub for all the open public drama they want.

Flair may help mark the status on the "cases". User flair may also be good indicators.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A "report bad moderation" report option might not be a bad idea

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Based on this, I assume you won't mind if I create s/ImpeachTrump and make 100 posts per day.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Based on what you wrote you wanted before, that also would be allowed, so I don't get your point

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Your concern seems to be that one sub, ruled by a tyrannical moderator, will take over the site by flooding the front page. If the concern is the creation of a site-wide monoculture via echochamer effects, I agree that can be a serious problem. So rate limit per sub and per user, by imposing two site-wide rules.

  • each sub is limited to N posts per day
  • each user is limited to M posts per day

In this way, the rules require no biased human intervention and the rules are applied fairly to all subs and users.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If the concern is the creation of a site-wide monoculture via echochamer effects, I agree that can be a serious problem

Yes that is the concern exactly.

Not a bad idea, we've thought of post limits before, it's an interesting idea for sure. But that still doesn't resolve the fact the mod deleted my comments because they disagreed with him. That's the problem that brought up this whole situation. Your ideas, good though they are, don't address this censorship-based mod behavior

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

But that still doesn't resolve the fact the mod deleted my comments because they disagreed with him.

I haven't seen your posts, but I'll err on the side of free expression and say IMHO your comments should not have been deleted. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that maybe you are just butthurt at having your comments moderated.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well assuming I did get indeed get censored for no reason other than to censor my opinion, what's your solution?

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All I can say for now is that I urge you not to make rules which unnecessarily create complexity and inhibit free expression. Every new rule has the potential for unanticipated abuse, but especially those which rely on humans (however well-intentioned) to be impartial (we aren't). That's why I've tried to suggest unambiguous site-wide rules which don't rely on the biased judgment mods or admins, and which can potentially be implemented programmatically. Such solutions reduce the burdens on admins and mods, thus promoting harmonious interactions rather than contentious battles over (perceived) unfairness.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So you have no solution for the mod censorship situation? I agree we shouldn't add unnecessary rules, but this rule seems extremely necessary in order to actually have free expression.

[–]happysmash27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was wondering why /u/Magnora7's comments were being removed, while mine were not, so I decided to look at them. Removing https://saidit.net/s/Libertarianism/comments/lgq/for_a_libertarian_altright/11od seems fairly understandable, but removing https://saidit.net/s/Libertarianism/comments/lbk/leftist_doublespeak_translator/11gx, not so much.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, that's a fair reading of it. The worst one wasn't my best moment, but the guy is trying to paint libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism, which is just silly. And it seemed to be part of a concerted propaganda effort, and I was pointing that out because I was frustrated with the front page being flooded with it. He removed 6 comments of mine in all though, most were questioning the posts themselves. I could've explained myself better in the moment, I agree.

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with this assessment. The first comment was low on the Pyramid of Debate, and the resulting argument fruitless. The second was high on the Pyramid of Debate, and the resulting argument slightly less fruitless.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not a solution. If anything there will be 30 AnCap subs not 3+ as there are now.

Further, if MidnightJoe uses up the allotment on the graveyard shift the rest of the day is fucked.

Sure you could complicate the rule more and make it per person but it still has many more flaws.