79 upvotes, 6 direct replies (showing 6)
View submission: Moderator Support & Resources
However, we do expect that these decisions have been made through consensus, and not via unilateral action. [...] If you believe that your community or another community is being subject to decisions made by a sole moderator without buy-in from the broader mod team, you can let us know via the Moderator Code of Conduct form above.
Since when? For as long as I can remember, Reddit's answer to any sudden changes made by top mod without consulting others (besides hacked accounts and maybe subreddit request retaliation) always been "They're top mod, sucks to be you guys 🤷".
So now that you bring it up, I gotta ask where does CoC say anything about needing mod consensus? What do you expect us to report? What's the "consensus" threshold, just majority, all of the mods, or some other percentage? Because it seems like an retroactive afterthought by you guys and not something that ever actually been enforced or written in the CoC.
Edit: Telling silence, can't even back up your words.
Comment by EdithDich at 14/06/2023 at 20:35 UTC
13 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Yeah, I used to mod a pretty popular sub where most the top mods were either shadow banned or totally MIA, yet admin did nothing despite repeated messages from the 3 actual active mods. All these empty promises from Admin are laughable.
Comment by Norci at 15/06/2023 at 06:32 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So now that you bring it up, I gotta ask where does CoC say anything about needing mod consensus? What do you expect us to report? Because it seems like an retroactive afterthought by you guys and not something that ever actually been enforced or written in the CoC.
/u/heavyshoes /u/Chtorrr
Comment by TruckBC at 13/06/2023 at 10:28 UTC*
25 upvotes, 3 direct replies
For as long as I can remember, Reddit's answer to any sudden changes made by top mod without consulting others (besides hacked accounts and maybe subreddit request retaliation) always been "They're top mod, sucks to be you guys 🤷".
I literally got that as a response less than a month ago from an admin when the whole team of a major Canadian regional subreddit r/BritishColumbia was removed and banned by the top mod in retaliation. Pretty much word for word.
So now that you bring it up, I gotta ask where does CoC say anything about needing mod consensus? What do you expect us to report? Because it seems like a retroactive afterthought by you guys and not something that ever actually been enforced or written in the CoC.
The way I read it is "strongly encouraged" to have moderator consensus (sorry can't remember exactly where, moddiquette I think?) But retaliatory changes to the mod team in any way after a top mod removal request is clearly spelled out to be not permitted and that they will take action, yet we still got "They're top mod, sucks to be you guys 🤷‍♂️"
I'm glad they've changed their tone. But hopefully they walk the talk, not just talk the talk.
Comment by Vio_ at 15/06/2023 at 14:06 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
So many badly run subs to the point where "power tripping mods" is the biggest meme about the site itself.
​
Instead of having controls in place to help minimize or kick out abusive subs, reddit admin has been super hands off completely.
​
But "now" we are suddenly beholden to the users? Because it suddenly benefits reddit admin for their own literal profit margin. It's still not even about "creating vibrant and well run subs."
The only way to kick out top mods is if they haven't done "anything" on the site for x number of months/years. That includes posting/commenting/pm'ing/anything.
​
It doesn't matter if they're no show on the sub itself and refuse to help out on any level- even a "hey, I'm still here" response when trying to ping them.
It still doesn't even matter if a mod actually is a power tripping piece of shit who spouts racist/sexist/bigoted shit and abuses the members.
The only thing counts now for admin interference is "you gotta have a consensus of your members for maintaining a blackout/privacy setting." They don't even say what the metric for that consensus is- 99% pro vote? half the entire member group plus one? a poll of 12 random members that's only open for 15 minutes?
It's a meaningless word and it's only being used for their own benefit. Again.
Comment by MrOaiki at 15/06/2023 at 07:33 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You and I have had this debate on Discord already, but I’ll respond to you here for visibility. CoC refers to section 8 in the general user agreement which in turn states that the admins decide on their own discretion how subreddits are to be handled. So as an answer to your question… since /u/Chtorr told you so two days ago.
Comment by SD_TMI at 15/06/2023 at 07:17 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I’m not an admin
But imo this is not so well written.
If you have drastic unilateral actions that are disruptive (some mods have lost their minds and sabotaged their subs) they can be removed and/or their actions reversed.
You are being far too literal with what is written here.
On top of that you don’t have enough Reddit staff to dig down and untangle the mountain of conversation and histories of the mod precedent decisions.
Going in and making snap decisions just because some jr. mods want to trump up charges so they can take over a different can cause a lot more problems.
I don’t think they have the staff to manage all the work like this. Hence the recent issues with the cutting off revenue leeching by plugging the API holes.