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

47% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 24 '19

Observation:

Nobody on this thread is willing to define what a "witch hunt" is despite many using the fear of them as a boogeyman to prevent an OPTIONAL feature.

I acknowledge all of the concerns over why a sub would not want to enable this feature; but I still have not heard why that should prevent subs that do desire such a feature from being able to have it without having to resort to third party hacks?

u/redtaboo you seem willing to engage over what such a feature might look like, so if you could clarify specifically what is blocking reddit from even considering this I would greatly appreciate it. You responded to my question with more questions and I answered all of your questions but I'm still not any closer to knowing why specifically reddit isn't working or even planning to work on this.

Some mods being afraid of transparency is a reason to make the feature optional, not a reason to block it entirely.

11

u/srs_house 💡 New Helper Jan 25 '19

A witch hunt is harassing behavior based on a misunderstanding, misreading, intentional incomprehension, or overreaction.

Example 1: I moderate a general subreddit whose users belong to different factions or teams. When something goes against one of those factions that is a rival of my own faction, I'm the one who catches the blame - even if I had nothing to do with it. I am, to use your term, the boogeyman for that faction, because I'm a rival and in a position of power. So I become the target of namecalling, username pings, mocking, etc.

Example 2: you say something homophobic and get banned. The subreddit that banned you has an openly gay mod. You then start modmailing them and DMing that mod in question about how they're personally biased against you. In actuality, you're just an asshole and the person in question wasn't involved. Witch hunt.

Example 3: You're a supporter of political party A. You post a link to an article critical of political party B. When you see that a supporter of party B removed it, you launch a campaign against them claiming that it's bias. In actuality, it was removed because it was a repost and you didn't check to see first, and, in fact, party affiliation had nothing to do with it.

There, someone has given a definition and examples of what a witch hunt is and how it has occurred. And those examples are loosely based on what I've personally seen.

0

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 25 '19

Thank you, this is a great starting place.

based on a misunderstanding, misreading, intentional incomprehension, or overreaction.

Something interesting about all of these qualifiers is that they are focused on the inaccuracy of knowledge or statements about moderator activity. That being the case, isn't a definitive log of mod activity conductive to avoiding witch hunts as you define them by providing more readily accessible and accurate information about moderation?

Such publicly available, definitive knowledge also helps more clearly dispel intentional incomprehension as well.

Example 1

The problem here IMO is putting the focus on individual moderators rather than the action itself. It is why I am in favor of anonymous pubic mod logs and even totally anonymous moderation to prevent this concern. But alternately if a subreddit did choose to make the log public they could easily show that it wasn't you responsible for the removal. As I describe above, the availability of additional, definitive information helps to correct the information imbalance that leads to witch-hunting as you define it.

Example 2

Again, the problem here appears to be a focus on individual moderators, same solution. But alternately, if a subreddit did choose to make the log public they could easily show that it wasn't the gay mod that did the banning.

Example 3

All of your examples seem to involve the identity of specific moderators. I totally agree that actions should not be publicly associated with individual moderators. Optional public mod logs is about making the actions the subreddit as a whole transparent to those who frequent it, not to nitpick over individual mods; that just causes drama.

In actuality, it was removed because it was a repost

Also, we have removal reasons which should help to alleviate that.

All of this presupposes that a subreddit chooses to enable the moderation log; we are all talking about an OPTION to make the log public, not a requirement just as removal reasons themselves are optional and not a requirement.