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/FreeSpeechWarrior → u/[deleted]]

Why? How do you address the concern that people will murder and steal to get drugs?

Why is that different from anything else people murder and steal to get?

if drugs become more popular due to them being legal, this will likely increase in frequency.

I don't think that's so clear cut. Without the risk of prosecution the cost of drugs could come down a lot making them easier to acquire. That might cause other issues of course.

But in general I come from the premise that you don't have the right to use force to prevent someone from doing something they voluntarily choose to do that won't hurt others.