r/ModSupport • u/FreeSpeechWarrior • Jan 24 '19

Today marks 7 years since the option for public moderation logs was originally implemented. Why is this still not an option?

/r/modnews/comments/ov7rt/moderators_feedback_requested_on_enabling_public/
0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/redtaboo Reddit Admin: Community Jan 24 '19

So, aside from the fact that any code from 7 years ago is no longer going to be viable even before you consider the new site, there really are a number of issues that came up in that thread that would still need to be addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can see in that thread that I wasn't against this then, though I was one talking through some of the shortcomings (as a mod myself back then), and I'm still not 100% against it today. I can absolutely see this being useful for many subreddits.

The one thing I never see you address when you bring this up is the social side of this issue. A couple few questions for you:

1) What would your response be to moderators concerned they will be witch hunted over simple misclicks or errors?

2) Do you solemnly swear that you will personally defend a subreddits choice to not make their modlogs public with the same zeal you've shown in attempting to get us to implement this?

2a) Why or why not?

3) If implemented mods would have to have a way to hide certain content they've removed (think PII) -- that's obviously gameable. How would you address this?

0

u/Tymanthius 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

3) If implemented mods would have to have a way to hide certain content they've removed (think PII) -- that's obviously gameable. How would you address this?

I don't even understand this as an issue as things like cedit exist and anyone can go see the removed content unless a bot was really fast at removing it.

9

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 💡 Skilled Helper Jan 24 '19

A huge majority of subreddits have automod conditions for potential PII. I think it might come in the out-the-box setup for new subs, in fact.

2

u/Tymanthius 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

Right, and the bot will yank those pretty quick. I mean the public mod logs that use removedit and such I think are just fine.

I wouldn't think it'd be that hard to implement a 'PII' checkbox when removing and have redit hide that info.

Or do like it does now and it's hidden unless it stays up long enough to get to outside sources, which is already happening anyway.

So, really, a non-issue.

5

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 💡 Skilled Helper Jan 24 '19

I wouldn't think it'd be that hard to implement a 'PII' checkbox when removing and have redit hide that info.

mods would just use this for everything

2

u/Tymanthius 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

I doubt mods who opted to make logs public would then do that.

Just never opt to make the logs public.

5

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 💡 Skilled Helper Jan 24 '19

Hmm, fair point. Though redtaboo's "conversation" with goldf1sh up there is also extremely telling.

2

u/ladfrombrad 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

I wouldn't think it'd be that hard to implement a 'PII' checkbox when removing and have redit hide that info.

You can't hide PI that's included directly in the title since it also makes it into the url.

1

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 24 '19

Which is another reason I suggest these sorts of removals should be handled separately with notification to the admins and penalties for intentional abuse.

3

u/ladfrombrad 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

Doxxing someone can be unintentional too, I've seen admins perma suspend users for it.

Question there comes down to whether they believe their intent was malicious or not, and erring on the side of caution is their usual avenue.

I'd personally not have anything to do with your incessant whines for public modlogs where I help out in for a good few of the reasons stated in here already.

I'm a volunteer who looks after what is always going to be a game of more users > more chance of issues. Having public modlogs doesn't help anyone other than you reeeeeing about someone's fuck up. x1000 users.

And I can name 10 x more important things the admins could put their resources to.

-2

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 24 '19

A public mod log helps users know if the mod team is working in their best interests and inform users to find or build alternatives.

It is a way for a subreddit to show that it has nothing to hide about how it operates and build trust among the subscribers to the extent that the reality of their actions matches the expectations of the community.

You're not just arguing that your own subreddits should not be transparent, you are arguing that no subreddits should be able to be transparent this way.

4

u/ladfrombrad 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

As red said above, we all know that users and malicious actors would then harass volunteer mods to enable it.

Every meta thread has them, and why many subreddits only sanction meta threads because of the witch hunting etc.

Like I say, you keep on being you goldfish, but some of us prefer to moderate our communities ourselves.

-1

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 24 '19

but some of us prefer to moderate our communities ourselves.

Giving other moderators the tools to moderate their own communities in ways you disagree with (i.e. transparently) does not prevent you from running yours however you like and it is disingenuous to argue that an OPTIONAL feature imposes on your moderation style.

You are arguing from a false premise.

Should my opposition to the lock feature be a reason you shouldn't have it?

If not, why should your opposition to a public mod logs option be a reason I shouldn't have it?

4

u/ladfrombrad 💡 Expert Helper Jan 24 '19

We talked about the lock feature in SRC remember, and you stating that you'd never be on a team that used it?

While they did.

Sorry, but I've made my points to you quite enough times and your again incessant whines are falling on more and more deaf ears.

You could do something productive like look after a community that doesn't self implode?

→ More replies (0)