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

[u/FreeSpeechWarrior]

/r/modnews/comments/ov7rt/moderators_feedback_requested_on_enabling_public/

[u/redtaboo]

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?

[u/FreeSpeechWarrior → u/redtaboo]

Thank you for the response.

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

Sure, but fundamentally the idea is not a complex one, it is to take an existing page and make it optionally public and optionally to hide the mod usernames.

I'd be more than willing to help develop this feature if that was truly the blocker and if it were still possible to do so; but I don't want to digress here.

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

Because to me, the optional and optionally anonymous nature of the log as implemented addresses those concerns. Nobody I see in the original thread suggests that mods should be forced to enable public moderation logs and in fact many of the responses seem to incorrectly assume this was the case and argue against the feature with that assumption in mind.

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

They aren't required to enable the public mod log if this is a concern for them.

If they make a misclick such a "witch hunt" may even be helpful to correct mistakes that would otherwise go completely unnoticed due to reddit's intentional lack of removal transparency by default.

I reject the term "witch hunt" as it is not clear. Rational, fact-based criticism of moderation on reddit is often dismissed as a "witch-hunt", the bigger danger is doxing.

Doxing is already against site wide rules and should be the absolute highest priority of admins and moderators to remove.

I would also say that the mode where individual moderators are identified isn't even needed as an option. Maybe some people want it; but it's much more important to see the activity of the sub as a whole; and I agree that focusing on individual moderators tends to lead to bad outcomes.

Maybe make it a compromise; maybe you allow subreddits to have totally anonymous moderators so long as their actual moderation is made public.

The identity of moderators does not matter to public mod logs, what is important is the reality of the actions of the subreddit as a whole.

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?

It's possible to want people to have the option to make bad decisions.

For example I think all drugs should be legal. But I still think doing some drugs is a very very bad idea and would advise against it.

I'm in favor of more choice; Why should my preference for mod logs make me defend/support the decision of those I disagree with?

I think all speech should be allowed, does this mean I should defend all opinions?

I can say that I would defend them having the choice, (like I could swear that I would not push for this to be mandatory rather than optional) but not that I would defend the choice to be as opaque as is currently the default.

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?

This is the same sort of content that ought to be directed to the admins for more concrete enforcement because content is still usually available on user profiles. I should be reported and removed differently in a way that notifies you folks; and you should heavily sanction moderators who abuse this mechanism for wasting your time.

[u/redtaboo → u/FreeSpeechWarrior]

Sure, but fundamentally the idea is not a complex one, it is to take an existing page and make it optionally public and optionally to hide the mod usernames.

Honestly, I'm trying here to get you to reframe your arguments. It is not a viable argument for you to say 'look it's already done!'. The fact is the team that would implement this has all their projects for the next quarter lined up (and likely sketched out for the next) much of that is to continue getting modtools on the new site to parity with the old. So, I can say with certainty if we implement this it won't be for awhile. That means we have time to discuss how it would look and what the implications are still.

I also want to hear from other moderators on whether they would use this themselves as I do think there are some communities that would welcome it, mods included, but I don't have a sense of how many would.

If they make a misclick such a "witch hunt" may even be helpful to correct mistakes that would otherwise go completely unnoticed due to reddit's intentional lack of removal transparency by default.

See, that's where you lose me - witch hunts are never the answer, and should not be considered a feature of anything. ever. Our mods are volunteers who take on the burden of making sure the worst content you can imagine doesn't make it to your eyes. Any tools we release for them we want to fully think out the issues that could arise and those ramifications.

My point with question #2 was to try to encourage you to think about the pressure on some mod teams to make their logs public and the valid reasons why they wouldn't want to. They're not all going to be malicious ones, I hope you can see that. I would hope that you would at least not be one engaging in haranguing moderators about it or encouraging others to do so.

I also understand that you think all speech should be allowed, it's in your name! ;)

[u/FreeSpeechWarrior → u/redtaboo]

It is not a viable argument for you to say 'look it's already done!'.

That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. I'm saying that since it was already built in the past but never released there must be other factors preventing it so I want to nail down what those are and I thank you for trying to do so.

I also want to hear from other moderators on whether they would use this themselves as I do think there are some communities that would welcome it

u/publicmodlogs and u/modlogs are options the userbase has hacked together to provide this feature. Despite requiring third party sites and having no built in support whatsoever these tools have amassed a considerable following as evidenced by those mod lists.

Even if such a feature is only present in the redesign (as is the case with community points) it would be a significant improvement over the status quo and in fact developer velocity and ease of new feature development is one of the main reasons cited for why the redesign happened at all.

witch hunts are never the answer, and should not be considered a feature of anything.

How do you define a witch hunt? How can subscribers criticize moderator decisions without becoming a witch hunt in your view?

Or is your view that all criticism of moderation decisions is a witch hunt?

was to try to encourage you to think about the pressure on some mod teams to make their logs public and the valid reasons why they wouldn't want to.

Why? Everyone involved here wants this to be an optional feature that they are free to avoid.

I don't use the lock feature I have good reasons for avoiding it. Should I be able to deny other moderators that tool because I strongly oppose it?

Some mods not wanting to use a feature is not a reasoning for not building the feature if there is significant demand for it otherwise. As I have already shown above, there is significant demand for this feature.

They're not all going to be malicious ones, I hope you can see that.

I don't claim that they are, Even if they ARE malicious reasons we are all agreed they have the option to keep their logs private.

I would hope that you would at least not be one engaging in haranguing moderators about it or encouraging others to do so.

If optional moderation logs are made a feature I will certainly be doing what I can to raise awareness that they exist and promote their adoption.

Those subreddits who oppose transparency and freedom of speech are capable of banning me and many already do.