The discussion was never no moderation v/s this moderation.

Maybe for you it isn't, but there are thousand of other people who have had only one piece of feedback: "let the upvotes decide"

---

Beyond that, I'll give my take on some specific points. Moderation and working for and with a large community with varied opinions is a huge challenge:

Personal attacks against mods/users is not healthy and should be controlled

Removing personal attacks or any criticsm against mods just results in people claiming "censorship" "power abuse" and then laying on with more attacks. That's why we leave up so many anti-mod attacks that would be removed if the topic was anything other than moderation.

The primary goal of rules and moderation should be the benefit of the community and not focus on individuals-either for or against- at the cost of the greater common good

The implications of that argument are unacceptable in my opinion. I think the moral relativism it implies is junk. Here's an example to illustrate: Let's say a majority of this community loved to be homophobic and wanted to chase away gay people, many more are indifferent to this topic leaving a small minority of people who care about anti-gay comments being removed.

You're saying that the indifference of the many and the wants of few should allow the few to be disproportionately negatively affected. Personal privacy isn't covered here: I'm sure this community would love all the juicy gossip details about pros personal lives, sexual escapades and whatever else they do, extremely invasive things. You're saying that's okay because "the greater common good" for the community trumps the things few want.

There was a Mod-Post regarding the upcoming 'draft rules' or what you will, which this community rejected

Based on voting patterns on that thread, people rejected the whole mode of conversation. They felt mod responses didn't contribute to conversation and wanted them gone from view. They didn't want to have a discussion with moderators. A lot of the sentiment was also just to let out steam directed at the mod team, which is fine but probably aren't the best arguments for changing rules.

I think one of the key flaws of this mod team is how few distinguished comments we leave when we moderate. The community tends to downvote anything distinguished, but I think it's worthwhile nonetheless. I have room for improvement here too.

People just don't see that others are being warned and banned for insults and hate speech. They don't see that threads are being removed for good reasons pretty consistently.

The end result is that people want 100% objective and clear-cut rules that are so detailed no mod-judgement is ever needed. They don't trust mods with any judgement. That's a very limiting factor in the design of rules: skirting intent of a rule by following the technicality of the wording becomes normative behavior. Discussions become rules-lawyering.

Wind the clocks back a few months and not only were the mods less heavy-handed there was a much greater amount of faith placed in them.

I don't think that's true at all. I've been around as a mod for 8 months (with time off) and the rules themselves have changed disappointingly little and the practices just the same. What's been going on previously is that the same rules have been enforced on the content mods have seen, but much has gone unseen. That leaves inconsistent moderation, which you point out is super problematic for a bunch of different reasons. One of those reasons is that people think the practice of mods has changed considerably, when the only change has been greater coverage and consistency.

Again, the repost-rule is super important in having discussions take place in ways which they can actually be followed. Making a bunch of threads on the same topic is a hindrance for discussing that topic.

---

Specific rules:

"content related to league of legends"

This is always going to be a sticking point because some people want the sub to relate only to gameplay. Others want gameplay and esports. A third group want gameplay and LoL culturey threads (fan art, lol community threads) but not esports. A fourth group want gameplay, esports and ol culture, a fifth group wants all of this and anything "Gaming" that intersects lol in one shape or form.

How do you create good definitions of those different things, what content falls in under which umbrella and what umbrellas should be used?

I'm personally a fan of the separation in 3 poarts (gameplay, esports, lol culture), but the crux of any relevancy discussion using that framework is "what is lol culture?" and there will be a huge volume of different opinions there. How to make that sort of rule objective and somehow cover most content types without listing them?

'witch-hunting' rules

I think the name of that group of rules is one of the biggest problems. When you boil it down to:

• no calls to arms (using reddit as a personal army)
• no accusations without evidence

it's pretty easy to see that those two rules are both needed and why they're good rules for protecting community figures against mob justice.

I think the second large issue with the witch-hunting rules is how they've been administrated. A lot of the text on the witch-hunting wiki page is good, but the text hasn't been followed as closely as it should have been in my opinion.

discussion of cheating rules

For those aware of specific types of cheating and how to procure cheats, this rule will seem more pointless than it is. The main goal of the rule is preventing reddit threads from leading hundreds of people to try cheats impacting thousands of games.

Publicizing cheats won't lead to faster fixes. Riot already has huge resources in place for the security team. I look immensely forward to the new client being released and the improvement in security it will add.

The idea that "showing cheating" will lead riot to somehow magically have fixes faster is silly - that's not how systematic eradication of cheaters works. The cost of all the games ruined by cheaters isn't worth the possible speed increases which are marginal at the VERY best.

---

I'm curious as what this is meant to accomplish.

A huge volume of feedback has been "let the upvotes decide." If the community wants to give that a shot, we want to give them that opportunity.