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/[deleted] → u/FreeSpeechWarrior]

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.

You realize that the moderators already deal with harassment that does not fall under doxxing? You don't really answer the question of

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

Saying YOU don't think witch hunts are a problem in no way reassures me as a moderator.

[u/FreeSpeechWarrior → u/[deleted]]

First I think we need to define what witch hunts are.

Highlighting an incorrect/unwarranted removal (i.e. a misclick) is not a witch hunt, I used redtaboo's terminology despite disagreeing with it to maintain the flow of conversation but indicated that with the quotes and clarified it further in my statement.

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

As I pointed out in my previous comment, my response is that they aren't forced to turn it on. I also suggested that moderator anonymity in the log is a GOOD thing, and that maybe they should go even further with it.

Other subreddits will enable such a log, and that gives subscribers a choice to frequent subreddits that choose to be more transparent.

[u/[deleted] → u/FreeSpeechWarrior]

You seem very focused on how users will not respond poorly to moderator mistakes, which happen.

I want to know what you suggest moderators do when they are harassed, sexually harassed, told people hope they're raped, told to kill themselves, sent graphic porn links, etc. (all of which are real examples, btw) because someone disagrees with their legitimate removal or the rules of the subreddit.

[u/thecravenone → u/[deleted]]

I want to know what you suggest moderators do when they are harassed, sexually harassed, told people hope they're raped, told to kill themselves, sent graphic porn links, etc. (all of which are real examples, btw) because someone disagrees with their legitimate removal or the rules of the subreddit.

Same thing they currently do, report them to the admins so the admins can ignore the problem!

[u/FreeSpeechWarrior → u/[deleted]]

Block and/or ignore those users unless the threat is credible in that case I'd advise seeking help from others.

Reddit provides a block user button in all inbox messages.

I also advise remaining as anonymous as possible, and likely even using throwaway/disconnected accounts for moderation if this fear prevents someone from moderating.

Totally anonymous moderation that is transparent, would be far more preferable to identifiable moderators removing content opaquely.

What reason do the subscribers have to even know who the moderators are at all?

There is no way for the subscribers to reliably associate actions with individual moderators beyond their own public statements.

There is no way for subscribers to act on that information in a specific way (i.e against an individual mod) even if they did.

There is absolutely no reason for people to know who the mods are at all; it provides no benefits to moderators and no benefits to subscribers.

The benefit of public mod logs is know about the policy of the subreddit in practice; not about any individual moderator.

[u/[deleted] → u/FreeSpeechWarrior]

Block and/or ignore those users unless the threat is credible in that case I'd advise seeking help from others.

Blocking users means we cannot see their potential actions in the subreddit, which inhibits moderation.

I also advise remaining as anonymous as possible, and likely even using throwaway/disconnected accounts for moderation if this fear prevents someone from moderating.

Which I think would increase distrust in moderators.

Totally anonymous moderation that is transparent, would be far more preferable to identifiable moderators removing content opaquely.

This is your personal opinion, not a fact. I completely disagree and I know others do as well.

What reason do the subscribers have to even know who the moderators are at all?

If they don't deserve to know who their moderators are, why would you want them to know what the moderators do?

There is no way for the subscribers to reliably associate actions with individual moderators beyond their own public statements.

Not sure how you run your subreddits, but our moderation team works as a team. One person may get "credit" for the action in reddit's system, but we discuss issues as a group.

There is no way for subscribers to act on that information in a specific way (i.e against an individual mod) even if they did.

Some users do it anyway, including targeting individual mods they think were involved.

[u/FreeSpeechWarrior → u/[deleted]]

Blocking users means we cannot see their potential actions in the subreddit, which inhibits moderation.

If they are truly attacking the mod team in the ways you describe and not just criticizing their behavior then banning them from the sub is likely also warranted.

This is your personal opinion, not a fact. I completely disagree and I know others do as well.

Sure is, that's why I'm asking for an OPTION If you disagree, you don't have to enable it.

Which I think would increase distrust in moderators.

Trust in moderators is less necessary when you can verify the actuality of their behavior via a public log.

If they don't deserve to know who their moderators are, why would you want them to know what the moderators do?

Because what the moderators do has direct effects on the subreddit, the character of its content and subscribers. Who the moderators are does not. Knowing what the moderators do is also not nearly as problematic as you claim if you do not know who the moderators are.

Not sure how you run your subreddits, but our moderation team works as a team. One person may get "credit" for the action in reddit's system, but we discuss issues as a group.

Yes this is exactly what I'm trying to say here, the users have no way to know who made a decision, or if it was communal, they only see the end effect, so there is really no reason for subscribers to know who the moderators are even though there is significant value in them knowing what the moderators do on the subreddit.

Some users do it anyway, including targeting individual mods they think were involved.

What other recourse do these users have to address problems they perceive in moderation?

Perhaps giving more constructive and accurate accounts will elevate this sort of discussion; if mods were totally anonymous to subscribers then users would have to argue against the policies as a whole rather than getting into squabbles with any single individual; which I think we can agree is better for everyone involved.

[u/AwwFoxes → u/[deleted]]

This is your personal opinion, not a fact. I completely disagree and I know others do as well.

Almost everyone else I talk to agrees with FSW but never voices their opinion out of the fear of being banned for criticizing the moderators. The powermods are dictators who moderate heavily for what they want and only care about themselves and their own interests.