105
106

Updating you on modtools and Community Dialogue (self.modnews)

AchievementUnlockd[A] が 投稿

I’d like to take a moment today to share with you about some of the features and tools that have been recently deployed, as well as to update you on the status of the Community Dialogue project that we kicked off some months ago.

We first would like to thank those of you who have participated in our quarterly moderator surveys. We’ve learned a lot from them, including that overall moderators are largely happy with Reddit (87.5% were slightly, moderately, or extremely satisfied with Reddit), and that you are largely very happy with moderation (only about 6.3% are reporting that you are extremely or moderately dissatisfied). Most importantly, we heard your feedback regarding mod tools, where about 14.6% of you say that you’re unhappy.

We re-focused and a number of technical improvements were identified and implemented over the last couple of months. Reddit is investing heavily in infrastructure for moderation, which can be seen in our releases of:

On the community management side, we heard comments and reset priorities internally toward other initiatives, such as bringing the average close time for r/redditrequest from almost 60 days to around 2 weeks, and decreasing our response time on admin support tickets from several weeks to hours, on average.

But this leaves a third, important piece to address, the Community Dialogue process. Much of the conversation on r/communitydialogue revolved around characteristics of a healthy community. This Moderator Guidelines for Healthy Communities represents a distillation of a great deal of feedback that we got from nearly 1000 moderators. These guidelines represent the best of Reddit, and it’s important to say that none of this is “new ground” - these guidelines represent the best practices of a healthy community, and reflect what most of you are already doing on a daily basis. With this document, though, we make it clear that these are the standards to which we hold each other as we manage communities here.

But first, a process note: these guidelines are posted informationally and won’t become effective until Monday, April 17, 2017 to allow time for mods to adjust your processes to match. After that, we hope that all of our communities will be following and living out these principles. The position of the community team has always been that we operate primarily through education, with enforcement tools as a last resort. That position continues unchanged. If a community is not in compliance, we will attempt conversation and education before enforcement, etc. That is our primary mechanism to move the needle on this. Our hope is that these few guidelines will help to ensure that our users know what to expect and how to participate on Reddit.

Best wishes,

u/AchievementUnlockd

Moderator Guidelines for Healthy Communities

Effective April 17, 2017

We’ve developed a few ground rules to help keep Reddit consistent, growing and fun for all involved. On a day to day basis, what does this mean? There won’t be much difference for most of you – these are the norms you already govern your communities by.

  1. Engage in Good Faith. Healthy communities are those where participants engage in good faith, and with an assumption of good faith for their co-collaborators. It’s not appropriate to attack your own users. Communities are active, in relation to their size and purpose, and where they are not, they are open to ideas and leadership that may make them more active.

  2. Management of your own Community. Moderators are important to the Reddit ecosystem. In order to have some consistency:

    1. Community Descriptions: Please describe what your community is, so that all users can find what they are looking for on the site.
    2. Clear, Concise, and Consistent Guidelines: Healthy communities have agreed upon clear, concise, and consistent guidelines for participation. These guidelines are flexible enough to allow for some deviation and are updated when needed. Secret Guidelines aren’t fair to your users—transparency is important to the platform.
    3. Stable and Active Teams of Moderators: Healthy communities have moderators who are around to answer questions of their community and engage with the admins.
    4. Association to a Brand: We love that so many of you want to talk about brands and provide a forum for discussion. Remember to always flag your community as “unofficial” and be clear in your community description that you don’t actually represent that brand.
    5. Use of Email: Please provide an email address for us to contact you. While not always needed, certain security tools may require use of email address so that we can contact you and verify who you are as a moderator of your community.
    6. Appeals: Healthy communities allow for appropriate discussion (and appeal) of moderator actions. Appeals to your actions should be taken seriously. Moderator responses to appeals by their users should be consistent, germane to the issue raised and work through education, not punishment.

  3. Remember the Content Policy: You are obligated to comply with our Content Policy.

  4. Management of Multiple Communities: We know management of multiple communities can be difficult, but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community. In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

  5. Respect the Platform. Reddit may, at its discretion, intervene to take control of a community when it believes it in the best interest of the community or the website. This should happen rarely (e.g., a top moderator abandons a thriving community), but when it does, our goal is to keep the platform alive and vibrant, as well as to ensure your community can reach people interested in that community. Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

Where moderators consistently are in violation of these guidelines, Reddit may step in with actions to heal the issues - sometimes pure education of the moderator will do, but these actions could potentially include dropping you down the moderator list, removing moderator status, prevention of future moderation rights, as well as account deletion. We hope permanent actions will never become necessary.

We thank the community for their assistance in putting these together! If you have questions about these -- please let us know by going to https://www.reddit.com/r/modsupport.

The Reddit Community Team

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 252
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TheMentalist10 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This Moderator Guidelines for Healthy Communities represents a distillation of a great deal of feedback that we got from nearly 1000 moderators.

That's fairly disingenuous. /r/CommunityDialogue didn't exist for moderators to talk about what moderators were doing poorly and ask for the admins help to create rules around preventing those things from happening. It existed because the admins were being (quite correctly) taken to task about the dire state of communications, near-total lack of support, etc., and the overwhelming majority discussions were geared towards addressing these concerns.

Instead, as a result of all this ostensibly fruitless back-and-forth, we get a list of guidelines which, to paraphrase a comment the last time they were announced, are broadly useless because anyone interested enough to read them is probably sticking to them already. Oh, and /r/CommunityDialogue is going away. Great.

I should stress that I don't think it's a bad thing that these guidelines exist. (And why they didn't before is totally beyond me; we've had about a thousand years to formalise these things in internet time.) But to present them as being somehow a response to the kinds of totally valid concerns which sparked the creation of /r/CommunityDialogue is, at best, misleading.

It all just comes across as very patronising, and I'm not really sure how you'd like us to respond to it. Are we supposed to be grateful that you're telling most of us to do what we're already doing rather than looking into the issues that are repeatedly raised?

There have, as you say, been massive improvements (by reddit's painfully slow standards) to the moderation experience. And we're all grateful for that. But these guidelines are simply not part of that progress.

/u/honestbleeps put it best in the last thread:

For what it's worth, I pretty much agree with most/all of the guidelines you've written up for moderators -- but why the hell after we've waited all this time is a list of guidelines for moderators what we're given in exchange for all the thoughtful dialog about what is hard about moderating communities? I'm fairly certain barely anyone here expected that after waiting all this time, we'd get "moderator guidelines"...

[–]Meepster23 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (102子コメント)

It’s not appropriate to attack your own users.

What if the sub is an entire joke and that's part of it. This is a frequent occurrence and normal/expected in some subreddits.

Secret Guidelines aren’t fair to your users—transparency is important to the platform.

Do we have to declare everything we consider spam? Do we have to state how we catch spammers? Maybe this should be applied to the admins first. "Brigading" is one of those rules that seem to be wildly up to interpretation.

While not always needed, certain security tools may require use of email address so that we can contact you and verify who you are as a moderator of your community.

In before 2fa

Moderator responses to appeals by their users should be consistent, germane to the issue raised and work through education, not punishment.

So does that mean I'm not allowed to ban spammers any more? I have to hand hold these account farmers and repeatedly tell them why they aren't allowed to do what they do?

but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community

So I can't ban a spammer across multiple subreddits until they participate there?

In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

This is yet another, vague, undefinable, "know it when we see it" rule that you are proclaiming that mods shouldn't be making a few bullet points earlier.

Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

Define reasonable. We are often lucky to get a response from the admins at all, bit hypocritical no?

What are the punishments for any of these "rules"?

These are completely left up for interpretation and actively contradict themselves since you are stating we shouldn't be making un-transparent rules.

These points were all brought up in /r/communitydialogue which you then abandoned for months, and basically said, "we hear you but aren't going to change anything".

this is another huge, self inflicted wound.

[–]Alkser 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I'd actually like to hear answers on everything you've said on here.

Especially in regards to spam - as I myself deal with that quite a lot on /r/leagueoflegends.

[–]capnjack78 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Reddit has shown for 5+ years that they don't care about spam, so we might as well moderate it as we see fit.

[–]Sporkicide[A] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

We've changed a lot about how we deal with spam, to the point of spinning off another team (Trust & Safety) that deals exclusively with spam and content policy enforcement.

[–]capnjack78 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

First I've heard of it, and I ask for spam tools for mods in every announcement I see from the admins. What does this team do, exactly, and how do mods benefit from it? Are they actually reading /r/spam again?

[–]elfa82 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, the /r/spam bot is pathetically limited in what it catches and no admins read that sub. Instead send a message to /r/reddit.com and use the rules subject. I typically get responses back for spam and vote manipulation within a day, sometimes even within an hour.

[–]abrownn 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can confirm, /u/MortalWomprat is my hero.

[–]PraiseBeToScience 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I typically get responses back for spam and vote manipulation within a day, sometimes even within an hour.

I never get a response to anything sooner than 3 days, including spam. I reported an account for spamming their website selling fake goods they didn't ban him. I stopped reporting anything because /r/reddit.com modmail is completely useless.

[–]jippiejee 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We've changed a lot about how we deal with spam, to the point of spinning off another team

Yeah, they're such a joke that we ceased reporting spam at all. We hardban them ourselves instead. They're useless. "If it only happens in your sub, it's not spam".

[–]ShaneH7646 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

could you reboot them? they seemed to have stopped working

[–]allthefoxes 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hey. Alternative point here. Blatant spam (seeeex) has gotten much better!! Thank you. I mean that.

But because of this, spam has evolved and T&S hasn't really caught up. Account farming is rampant and I've yet to see visible improvement :( pics doesn't bother to report most of this stuff anymore since by the time we do, they are 10 accounts away and keep coming back when we do. Hopefully the situation will improve in the future.

[–]glowingRadon 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But is the sex spam better because Reddit has gotten better at detecting and removing, or is it because the spammer has stopped to retool his methods? Given it was a dramatic sudden stop and not a gradual slow down, I'm inclined to believe the latter...

[–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (68子コメント)

It’s not appropriate to attack your own users.

What if the sub is an entire joke and that's part of it. This is a frequent occurrence and normal/expected in some subreddits.

We will certainly look at context. And we aren't taking enforcement actions without talking first, so you would have the opportunity to point that out.

Secret Guidelines aren’t fair to your users—transparency is important to the platform.

Do we have to declare everything we consider spam? Do we have to state how we catch spammers? Maybe this should be applied to the admins first. "Brigading" is one of those rules that seem to be wildly up to interpretation.

I don't disagree. Some terms are useful for their flexibility - that is, I don't want to get us into a position where a ban is argued because someone isn't "QUITE" the definition of something, but give enough freedom for things to grow and to evolve. But what that guideline is focused on is transparency around expected behavior. Your users should know clearly what is and is not appropriate.

Moderator responses to appeals by their users should be consistent, germane to the issue raised and work through education, not punishment.

So does that mean I'm not allowed to ban spammers any more? I have to hand hold these account farmers and repeatedly tell them why they aren't allowed to do what they do?

Absolutely not. What is DOES mean is this: if someone comes to you and says "huge misunderstanding. I didn't realize that was against the rules, and I promise that I won't ever be doing it again." and you can verify their good faith, you should be willing to talk to them about it.

but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community

So I can't ban a spammer across multiple subreddits until they participate there?

I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited. However, it's a bit different when we're dealing with a fully automated spambot. We don't want you pre-emptively banning 'people', but I don't have a strong feeling about protecting a bot's feelings.

In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

This is yet another, vague, undefinable, "know it when we see it" rule that you are proclaiming that mods shouldn't be making a few bullet points earlier.

We'll be publishing guidelines for that prior to enforcing. This is not the detail, this is the statement of principle.

Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

Define reasonable. We are often lucky to get a response from the admins at all, bit hypocritical no?f

Reasonable is dependent on the situation. If we are asking you to respond about a child porn issues, reasonable is a whole lot faster than if we have a question about your community's css.

[–]thirdegree 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Absolutely not. What is DOES mean is this: if someone comes to you and says "huge misunderstanding. I didn't realize that was against the rules, and I promise that I won't ever be doing it again." and you can verify their good faith, you should be willing to talk to them about it.

So we need to start tracking users that have a history of breaking the rules? I assume you're working on a native way to do this then? I also assume this is only to limits of reasonableness, and that you're not expecting us to give second chances to people that come into our sub yelling racist slurs at everyone.

[–]Shagomir 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

This is especially troublesome when people have a history of deleting their rule-breaking posts. Without some kind of way to track these sorts of things, this is going to open up whole new attack strategies for bad actors playing a "the mean mods banned me for no reason! Plz help admins!" role.

[–]thirdegree 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Absolutely. There are several bots that can do it but they really shouldn't be adding new rules that force mods to use more third party services.

[–]Shagomir 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's unfortunate, but all the subs I moderate pretty much require Toolbox and participation in an external chat program like Slack, Discord, or IRC.

There is no way to manage something like this natively on Reddit, which is frustrating. It's nice to have tools, but not when they are 3rd party and could break at any time for any reason if Reddit decides to make a change.

[–]thirdegree 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh same. Toolbox is absolutely mandatory, and a slack makes everything so much easier.

[–]MajorParadox 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

and a slack makes everything so much easier.

Also, animated emojis make modding fun!

[–]Phallindrome 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with Toolbox being a requirement and I definitely find external chat programs helpful, but I've actually had good results with Mod Discussions in the new modmail in one of my subreddits. All our active mods are also active in the mod discussions, and those discussions stay where they are, without being archived or scrolling up into oblivion. Modmail definitely needs improvements though. (For starters, in modmails from users, I should be able to see all the previous contacts we've had with that user, not just the last three.)

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm sure he meant "be willing to give second chances" in a general way. There's no reason to nitpick.

[–]thirdegree 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I thought they were just telling us that our rules should be "Clear, Concise, and Consistent" tho

[–]english06 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think your formatting got goofy.

[–]elfa82 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

nah, he's just a fan of new modmail

[–]Precursor2552 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So I can't ban a spammer across multiple subreddits until they participate there?

I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited. However, it's a bit different when we're dealing with a fully automated spambot. We don't want you pre-emptively banning 'people', but I don't have a strong feeling about protecting a bot's feelings.

Ok so I'm a mod in two subreddits that are virtually identical (one different rule), one is far smaller than the other, but occasionally a user will get removed from one, and run to the other. Are you saying I can't ban from both when they attack users in the main one, or issue comments (racism/sexism/antisemitism) in one that are extremely rule breaking in both?

I have no desire to force my users to be attacked multiple times in order to fully remove a problematic user from both communities which given the size of the smaller I'm betting have close to 100% overlap in users.

[–]Norci 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It’s not appropriate to attack your own users.

What if the sub is an entire joke and that's part of it. This is a frequent occurrence and normal/expected in some subreddits.

We will certainly look at context. And we aren't taking enforcement actions without talking first, so you would have the opportunity to point that out.

I hope this doesn't mean mods will be held to any kind of higher standard of behavior than users, because we are users too. If someone is talking shit, we should be able to respond by talking shit. Unless you mean modabuse, because that is an actual issue where some mods are too quick on delete/ban button.

[–]Vlerss 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You quoted your own replies. Just a heads up.

[–]ucantsimee 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited.

So will certain communities "ban by API" policies be prohibited now?

[–]imnoidiot5 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Admins can't format confirmed. First spez, now you. SAD!

[–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Gimme a break, it's all I can do to avoid going into wiki-code. Seven years of habits are hard to break.

[–]cojoco 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh god no.

That explains where "good faith" came from.

I guess if you want to turn reddit into a shrinking site populated by skeezy nerds, you're going the right way about.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]MajorParadox 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community

    So I can't ban a spammer across multiple subreddits until they participate there?

    I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited. However, it's a bit different when we're dealing with a fully automated spambot. We don't want you pre-emptively banning 'people', but I don't have a strong feeling about protecting a bot's feelings.

    So, there should be no issue if we ban a user for a small infraction, but base that decision on viewing their user profile and seeing a pattern?

    [–]capnjack78 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (28子コメント)

    Absolutely not. What is DOES mean is this: if someone comes to you and says "huge misunderstanding. I didn't realize that was against the rules, and I promise that I won't ever be doing it again." and you can verify their good faith, you should be willing to talk to them about it.

    There's no way to verify their good faith. When we ban people at /r/youtubehaiku, it's typically for one of a few reasons:

    • They're toxic and starting flame wars, which is not the point of a sub for funny videos.

    • They've a redditor for years, and suddenly make multiple rule-breaking posts.

    • They're a spammer.

    In all of these cases you can verify that they don't deserve any show of good faith at all.

    I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited. However, it's a bit different when we're dealing with a fully automated spambot. We don't want you pre-emptively banning 'people', but I don't have a strong feeling about protecting a bot's feelings.

    So then shut down T_D, and communities like it, and then the people who do preemptive bans won't have much of a reason to anymore.

    If we are asking you to respond about a child porn issues, reasonable is a whole lot faster than if we have a question about your community's css.

    More vague rules. You might get a response in 12 hours or so. I have no idea what you expect, so you'll just have to accept this level of service from unpaid volunteers.

    [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    More vague rules. You might get a response in 12 hours or so. I have no idea what you expect, so you'll just have to accept this level of service from unpaid volunteers.

    It's worth pointing out that we know you're unpaid volunteers. We even had that in the previous draft, but cut it because people told us that it sounded like we were talking down to mods.

    [–]capnjack78 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well, I appreciate that, and I don't mean to come off totally combative. But, like other mods here in this thread, I'm alarmed at how half-baked some of these guidelines seem to be. I know you said details are coming, but just about everyone here is totally confused about the purpose, application and enforcement of these rules. It seems very much unpolished/unfinished.

    [–]ShaneH7646 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Do admins have to follow the 'respond in a reasonable amount of time' guideline?

    [–]tizorres 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The only solution is to bring back reddit notes!

    [–]CSFFlame 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    So then shut down T_D, and communities like it, and then the people who do preemptive bans won't have much of a reason to anymore.

    1) You're free to autoban people for posting in a political subreddit that has a different political leaning than you do personally.

    2) You don't get to ban the community just because you don't like it. You already have your little safe space where you autoban people pre-emptively just in case they might disagree with you.

    3) Do you REALLY want to set ~370000 T_Ders loose on reddit?

    コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

      [–]Meepster23 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

      We will certainly look at context. And we aren't taking enforcement actions without talking first, so you would have the opportunity to point that out.

      So, it's not a rule, it's something that "you'll know when you see". Sounds.. vague.. which brings me to:

      I don't disagree. Some terms are useful for their flexibility - that is, I don't want to get us into a position where a ban is argued because someone isn't "QUITE" the definition of something, but give enough freedom for things to grow and to evolve. But what that guideline is focused on is transparency around expected behavior. Your users should know clearly what is and is not appropriate.

      This answers none of my question and just dances around it. Do I have to spell out that you aren't allowed to create 50 new YouTube channels and upload monetized and stolen videos to them and how I detect that? I sure as hell better not be otherwise there's no point, I can just turn off the bots and send all spam reports to you to deal with instead.

      THIS is an unclear, non-transparent rule. It's not even ironic because I expected this after reading the drafts, but this is the epitome of hypocritical.

      Absolutely not. What is DOES mean is this: if someone comes to you and says "huge misunderstanding. I didn't realize that was against the rules, and I promise that I won't ever be doing it again." and you can verify their good faith, you should be willing to talk to them about it.

      Yet that's what it states. And you determine good faith how exactly? What is your measuring stick for "good faith"? Do you remember the whole discussions in /r/communitydialogue about how to make good rules? Ya know the ones that said they should be specific and quantifiable as possible? Especially around sitewide rules.. like this whole thread

      I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited. However, it's a bit different when we're dealing with a fully automated spambot. We don't want you pre-emptively banning 'people', but I don't have a strong feeling about protecting a bot's feelings.

      That, again, doesn't answer my question. These are largely people behind these spam accounts that I deal with at least. Am I or am I not allowed to ban someone across multiple subs when they start posting stolen videos, re-uploaded to their own channels to try and make money?

      We'll be publishing guidelines for that prior to enforcing. This is not the detail, this is the statement of principle.

      I just... I can't even... How many times are we going to do this dance. How many times are the admins going to rush something out the door without thinking it through or talking with us (or in this case talking to us and ignoring us) and put out some half baked idea promising to fill in the dots later.

      To put it bluntly. I don't believe you.

      Reasonable is dependent on the situation. If we are asking you to respond about a child porn issues, reasonable is a whole lot faster than if we have a question about your community's css.

      Why on gods green earth would you ever be asking MODS to deal with CP issues? That's something we refer you in the first place. And, good, more vague guidelines.. I'll add those to the list of things to hold my breath for..

      [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Why on gods green earth would you ever be asking MODS to deal with CP issues? That's something we refer you in the first place. And, good, more vague guidelines.. I'll add those to the list of things to hold my breath for..

      Yeah, CP was a terrible example. I more intended to show that there are varying levels of urgency.

      [–]AnSq 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I more intended to show that there are varying levels of urgency.

      But you didn't provide a baseline for what “reasonable” means for any level of urgency.

      [–]Phallindrome 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah, if you see CP on one of my subreddits, and I haven't seen it, removed it, and reported it to you already, I 100% expect you to deal with it yourself that instant. I'm not a lawyer, but I think not doing so might actually open you up to legal troubles.

      [–]Meepster23 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Well, I can't think of an example of anything that an admin would need from mods that "urgently", but if you come up with a realistic example, I'm all ears.. Maybe, ya know, an actual timeline too instead of "soon".

      Also I'm hoping you hit submit too early and are planning on responding to the rest of my post.

      [–]code-sloth 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I don't have much hope of the admins ever getting their crap together on this.

      [–]Halaku 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited.

      There goes my dreams of notoriety by writing a bot that autobanned all T_D posters...

      [–]picflute 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Formatting please fix it this isn't Tumblr

      [–]Endless_Vanity 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      you should be willing to talk to them about it.

      Are you planning on forcing mods to do this or is this more reddiquette that certain mods tend to outright disagree with. For example cross posting is recommended but there is at least one default sub that will ban you for this activity for life even if you didn't do it in their sub.

      [–]purplespengler 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Your users should know clearly what is and is not appropriate.

      This seems to be based on an utterly naive idea of how many users care at all about what is or is not appropriate when it's opposed to their own interests. If that number were as high as you seem to think it is, there would not be a need for moderators to the extent that there currently is.

      What is DOES mean is this: if someone comes to you and says "huge misunderstanding. I didn't realize that was against the rules, and I promise that I won't ever be doing it again." and you can verify their good faith, you should be willing to talk to them about it.

      Do you have any actual idea how many threads moderators have to remove in a day, and how many people contest them? Mandating that unpaid volunteers should be willing to talk to every single person who lies about not having read rules that we've made plainly visible to them is an absurd.

      [–]capnjack78 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (15子コメント)

      It seems to me that this was all written as a way to remove undesirable (read: those that affect Reddit's profit margin and marketability) subreddits. They're far too vague for any moderator to interpret in any way other than "Be excellent to each other". I plan to ignore it and keep doing what I do. Frankly, I'm not sure who asked for this, and it doesn't seem like anyone really needs it except for Reddit admins to use it against well known toxic subs.

      [–]Meepster23 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Which they could just as easily, and more effectively handle, under "we own the site, we don't like you, piss off". Instead of trying to couch all of this in vague "rules" that will only serve to piss people off and cause more rule lawyering. I fully expect to be linked to these guidelines under threat of being reported to the admins, by someone screaming about me oppressing them after they've ban banned for screaming racial slurs at eachother.

      [–]Sporkicide[A] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (13子コメント)

      It's more like a way to reinforce what most of you are doing right and giving guidelines to mods that might need the guidance. Anyone can create a subreddit, but we haven't done a lot to help new mods learn how to build and manage their community.

      [–]capnjack78 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (12子コメント)

      we haven't done a lot to help new mods learn how to build and manage their community.

      In that case, I think you guys need to think through this a lot more. You've got long-seasoned moderators in this thread asking for clarification of these incredibly vague rules we should follow, "or else" (Is it "or else"?).

      [–]Sporkicide[A] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (11子コメント)

      We're spending a pretty significant amount of time on this, this just happens to be the first product. It's the result of observing long-seasoned moderators and what has worked. Overall it's mostly a formal "keep doing what you've been doing" for you and a guidepost for those newer mods.

      [–]Meepster23 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

      We're spending a pretty significant amount of time on this, this just happens to be the first product

      Which literally hasn't changed except some wording from the first draft which all these same points were brought up 2 months ago....

      [–]Sporkicide[A] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

      This post is not the entirety of the project.

      [–]the_black_panther_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      When will we see the rest, then?

      [–]Meepster23 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

      Well I look forward to having more vague bullshit sprung on us at the last second in the near future then.

      Glad we could all become such a vital propaganda piece over at /r/communitydialogue so admins could pretend to listen to feedback.

      [–]verdatum 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

      The perception I got is that things were rolling along very nicely, and then something happened, related to take-your-pick of recent events of the time, and the project got handed-off and the goals were re-evaluated.

      I don't think this was the intended end-deliverable from the beginning; and if it was, then there was some serious miscommunication with the admins initially running the dialogue.

      But we're all stuck with conjecture.

      [–]Meepster23 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

      The TLDR of this whole thing is

      Admins : "Hai guys, remember that thing we posted 2 months ago and then never actually responded to questions / suggestions about? Yeah, we're making that enforcable rules here pretty soon. #DealWithIt"

      I'm not sure how in the world they can claim they are posting this so we can "adjust" as they say, when they give absolutely no clarification to the extremely vague guidelines.

      Spezgiving happened. Then posts were delayed. Then they'd be "posted soon" then another month past and they posted these "rules". Then they give no info on what they are going to do going forward to fix their communication issues, and it's the same, worn, "we're making sure this doesn't happen again" bullshit that gets spoon fed to us each and everytime they go in and make some stupid change like this.

      [–]green_flash 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I have to hand hold these account farmers and repeatedly tell them why they aren't allowed to do what they do?

      "dear sir please, unlock my reddit, please sir! I am not spam. Thanks you so very much."

      [–]Meepster23 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Literally this..

      Also..

      "post not showing new queue please help"

      [–]bryntheskits 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community

      This happens a lot, if you post in kotakuinaction or tumblrinaction you are banned from a lot of subs, even if you have never posted in them.

      [–]Meepster23 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Right, and I'm sure that is probably the behavior they are trying to curb, but their wording is completely ambiguous and that's my point. It's a poorly written, unclear rule, which they themselves say rules shouldn't be written poorly...

      [–]bryntheskits 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      It is, and I don't even see a clear way that they are going to enforce any of these guidelines (or if they even are)

      [–]Meepster23 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Well if they enforce them anything like their other "rules", nothing is going to actually happen so, "meh"..

      [–]jakkarth 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (4子コメント)

      Improvements to subreddit rules

      We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

      Remember to always flag your community as “unofficial” and be clear in your community description that you don’t actually represent that brand.

      What about subreddits that are officially run by a brand?

      Please provide an email address for us to contact you.

      This needs clarification. Does this mean use the Verified Email piece of the user preferences? Put an email address in one of the 500-character rule descriptions? PM it to reddit.com?

      when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

      Remember that we're volunteers, not employees. We don't get paid to sit in front of a computer to deal with reddit stuff. How long is "reasonable" given this reality? Is there an expectation of parity between moderator responses to admins vs the (previous several weeks? wow) admins to moderators?

      Where moderators consistently are in violation of these guidelines

      As far as I can see, aside from possibly the content possible and cross-sub ban points, every single one of these entries is extremely subjective. "It’s not appropriate to attack your own users" could be interpreted by a user as "a moderator removed my post and I don't agree with their decision." If we're going to talk about behavioral guidelines, could you explain about the guidelines admins are going to use to enforce these subjective rules?

      In other news, why is there a sub to discuss this but it's invite-only? Never mind, sounds like other commenters here were participants there and it was the usual policy of admins not bothering to talk to anyone for months at a time.

      [–]green_flash 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Improvements to subreddit rules

      We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

      Care to elaborate? I think the rules feature is a great thing. Reports are actually useful now. And showing the rules on mobile is certainly an improvement as well.

      [–]jakkarth 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This thread is about the "moderator rules", so I'd rather not dive back into the subreddit rules thing powerlanguage announced recently. You can check the post here (I think? or modsupport?) to see why I feel like it's a step in the wrong direction.

      [–]verdatum 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It honestly did start out very nice and promising. Working with a small group of mods to try and hash-out some long standing concerns was a lovely idea. Then a fire happened (right around spezgiving), and it sounds like people got retasked.

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–]creesch 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (47子コメント)

        Alright, fair is fair. These are better than I expected and a bit more concise than the draft posted months ago. Not by much, but still every bit counts.

        I am still not sure how or rather, why this route was taken. I mean:

        1. Over five months ago /r/communityDialogue is started.
        2. The first month is glorious with good discussions and at the end of the month a start of summaries from the previous summaries.
        3. Then all of the sudden... radio silence for almost two months with an incidental "not dead yet" post. No more discussions, no more summaries.
        4. Then two months later suddenly out of the blue the first draft of the guidelines that have almost no relation with what happened before. We get a few initial replies in the thread before after it becomes clear people are not happy... radio silence.
        5. Today, again a few months later we suddenly get a repeat of 4 with the message that the entire thing is shutdown.

        What I really would like to know is... why? What happend, why the radio silence and basically non responses? All we got in the past two posts where joke responses to joke comments and few short responses to the more serious inquiries.

        How is that supposed to make us have good faith in the community team?

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (44子コメント)

        Sure. And in the spirit of "fair is fair", I was pretty upfront in the post that we made to that community that the process itself was flawed. There are a number of things that I would do differently, if I were to do it again. (Don't worry, I'm not...)

        The reality is that frankly when we were having to prioritize responding there versus putting out the fire of the day, all too often the long term was excluded in favor of the immediate.

        That's not ideal, and it's something that we actively are working to be sure doesn't happen again.

        [–]creesch 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (39子コメント)

        The reality is that frankly when we were having to prioritize responding there versus putting out the fire of the day, all too often the long term was excluded in favor of the immediate.

        I am having trouble feeling this is based on truth. It might explain the first radio silence which indeed happen when reddit itself was in a bit of a turbulent period, but it doesn't explain my fourth bullet point. You really dropped that thing and then when everyone responded rather critical basically disappeared of the radar for over a week (maybe even longer, I don't remember).

        your initial invitation, a long long time ago there was this bit.

        Our first task will be to create a document similar to moddiquette that outlines not only best practices and guidelines for moderators but also what mods and their communities can expect from admins.

        Now, with some creative thinking you can argue that the first bit now has been done. But the latter bit hasn't been touched on formally, informally the entire handling of this thing has sent a huge signal. A negative one at that, I am not sure if you realize how disappointed people were with the initial draft (though I can't escape the feeling that you did hence the off the radar part) but it really felt like a slap in the face from something that started very promising.

        Which makes.

        That's not ideal

        One of the biggest understatements I have recently seen.

        For me, it has made it very clear that the answer to "what to expect from the admins" is "not to much, commitment is flaky at best". I am not even sure if I should be aiming this at you, /u/honestlbeeps already said it best many months ago so I am just going to quote him.

        To whoever it was at reddit that "gives permission" for employees to spend time on something -- if you are unable to truly focus effort/resources on something, please do not waste your / our time. Efforts like this require strategic planning, dedicated resources to ensure that they're actually executed in a timely manner, and a set of concrete goals ahead of time. It doesn't seem as if any of that was really done in the background here. I get the impression that a well meaning person (or a few) said to someone "hey, we should really take some time to talk with the community and get feedback and really make things better!" and someone "high enough up" went "yeah, that sounds cool, do it!"...

        Did ANYONE say "hey, sounds good. what are the goals? what will it mean for us in terms of dedicating some time/resources to coming up with the right questions? what will it mean for us in terms of communicating clear expectations and goals? How much horsepower/bandwidth will we need to implement any of the solutions the community comes up with -- and are we dedicated do doing that or do we need most of our programmers entirely focused on a/b testing and other marketing initiatives?"

        You're getting a negative response in this thread because you failed to set expectations properly. You also screwed your own employees by having them come back to something that they were pulled away from for so long that they lost track of the community's thoughts/expectations and made a post like this one... I don't blame OP here, I blame the process (or lack thereof) at reddit.

        Also one last thing:

        Most importantly, we heard your feedback regarding mod tools, where about 14.6% of you say that you’re unhappy.

        Did you ask them if they were happy with the native mod tools or modtools when using /r/toolbox? I am being serious, we often find people people asking stuff about toolbox functionality thinking they are native to reddit.

        I have a hard time believing the 14.6% figure is anything near accurate.

        [–]jakkarth 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (22子コメント)

        Was this survey part of the invite-only sub? I don't remember seeing it. I would have counted myself in the "I love Toolbox, native stuff and admin support severely lacking" category.

        [–]creesch 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        No, it is unclear to me who they surveyed for this. So no clue what their sample size was, what sort of subs they modded, etc.

        I remember seeing "something" about it a long time ago.

        [–]jakkarth 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I guess if you're trying to spin something as positive, it's easier if you only survey people happy with what you're doing. :)

        [–]10thTARDIS 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I don't believe I ever saw the survey; if I did, it was far enough back that I can't remember it.

        [–]kethryvis[A] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (17子コメント)

        Surveys need a representative sample, so we don't always ping every single mod for each survey. The mod surveys don't have anything to do with participation in r/communitydialogue though.

        [–]mookler 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Is seeing the survey (sans results if necessary) something you're able to share with us? Am curious what questions were asked.

        Or maybe even how many people participated? Always love survey data!

        If not, that's cool too.

        [–]jakkarth 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (13子コメント)

        Good to know, thanks. Since you're only surveying a sample, how do you choose who to include? Is it just "select * from moderators order by rand() limit 1000"? Does it factor in how many subscribers they moderate over? How many subs? I can't argue against the numbers presented because I wasn't chosen to be part of such a survey, but I can at least ask questions to indicate whether the data collection process seems reasonable.

        [–]kethryvis[A] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

        We select for mods who have been active recently (because there's no point in surveying someone who's not active), and make sure that if you've already answered you don't get chosen again right away (so we're not bugging you all the time). From there it's a random selection.

        [–]jakkarth 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        That sounds like it would strongly favor responses from moderators who moderate subreddits with low subscriber counts and traffic, given that's what the majority of subreddits are. If there are 1,000 moderators who mod 1m+ subscriber subs, and 1,000,000 moderators who moderate 1000 subscriber or fewer subs, they'd outnumber the moderators of larger subs by 1000 to 1. This sounds like a horrible way to select people to survey, and absolutely 100% supports /u/creesch's point.

        [–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (7子コメント)

        I'm like 65% sure you're responding to someone who's very skilled in research design.

        [–]creesch 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        So subscriber count and activity of subreddits isn't take into account?

        Because yeah, when I started my first sub years ago I wasn't overly concerned with the spartan mod tools. The one post I had to remove in a week didn't really make that an issue.

        The bigger and more active the subreddit because the more troublesome it became.

        Of course I do realize you also want smaller subreddits to have a voice and be heard, however when talking about tools available and their quality I would think that the voice of people that have to deal with the larger quantities of things to moderate would weigh in a bit more.

        [–]buzznights 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Count me in next time, please. I didn't know you surveyed like this and would be happy to provide feedback.

        [–]verdatum 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        From there it's a random selection

        You're already counted in. It's just a matter of when your name gets drawn.

        [–]creesch 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Surveys need a representative sample, so we don't always ping every single mod for each survey.

        Hrm... I know you didn't intended it like that but that sentence really reads like "we cherry pick our mods so we get the answers we want".

        Seriously though, how do you make sure the answers are representative. Because honestly, like I said elsewhere, I don't believe for one second some of those numbers are accurate.

        [–]Tim-Sanchez 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Why don't you just send a modmail to subreddits? That way you only get moderators who are relatively active or checking modmail.

        A lot of active moderators have never even heard of this survey, and from my own experiences and seeing what gets posted on /r/modsupport, I am very sceptical of the 14.6% figure.

        How many moderators in total have been surveyed? And how many different subreddits does that include?

        [–]Precursor2552 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I think it might have been one they sent out? One of my mod teams had a fellow mod be contacted for a survey. So they might have randomly sent out invites until they got 1000 responses.

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (15子コメント)

        I have a hard time believing the 14.6% figure is anything near accurate.

        It tracks fairly consistently across several quarters.

        [–]Phallindrome 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

        Well, I guess I'm not included in that sample, because modding would be impossible for me without toolbox and a couple custom scripts I've acquired.

        [–]Sporkicide[A] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        One thing to keep in mind is that participants in this discussion do skew toward the most active and involved moderators of larger subreddits on the site. You're much more likely to use those tools, but there are thousands more users who mod smaller subreddits that stick to the vanilla mod interface.

        [–]creesch 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        the most active and involved moderators of larger subreddits on the site.

        Who also have to deal with the larger quantities of moderator related tasks and therefore need the tools more than other mods so therefore also benefit by having better tools. So even if the 14% number is somehow accurate (I still highly doubt it considering the absence of native mod tools on mobile for example) it still isn't all that relevant. It would become interesting if it was 14.6% of all the mods that do say... 90% of the moderation actions on reddit or something to that regard.

        And then there is the fact that I have to wonder if the questions asked are actually asking what you think they are asking. Which I already explained two comments higher in this chain.

        To give some more context about why I strongly believe something is off.

        • /r/toolbox currently has around 1300 users online, that is the amount of people that has toolbox installed and is currently active on reddit. That number remains fairly high throughout the day.
        • Toolbox has around 13k active Chrome users, 2k Firefox users and a few hundred Opera users. So we have somewhere around 15k active users. That is 15.000 moderators that use a third party tool on a fairly regular basis.

        Why are these numbers relevant? Well, last time I checked (it has been a while) /r/defaultmods has somewhere between 800-900 approved submitters (mods without modmail rights don't have access), /r/modtalk around 1700 approved contributors, /r/modclub around 3900 subscribers and /r/modsupport around 3700. This means that the subreddits that attract active and engaged mods (disregarding overlap) don't even account for all our users.

        And yet, your numbers say that only 14.6% of the mods are unhappy with the native tools available to them? I am sorry, I simply cannot believe that.

        As /u/jakkarth already said

        I'm trying really hard not to be abrasive here, but seriously, how does this sound reasonable to you? One of these viewpoints is wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's not ours.

        And the same really goes for /u/AchievementUnlockd as well.

        [–]Phallindrome 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I disagree with this. Toolbox is equally useful for me in my small subreddits as in my large subreddits; perhaps even more so, since in a large subreddit I can be reasonably confident that there's stuff in my modqueue at any given time, whereas in a small subreddit I might manually go to check the modqueue once a week if I didn't have Toolbox to push a notification to me. In addition, users who take your voluntary surveys, unless I miss my guess, will also skew towards the most active and involved moderators on reddit.

        [–]Redbiertje 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        In another comment from an admin:

        We select for mods who have been active recently

        [–]jakkarth 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        One thing to keep in mind is that participants in this discussion do skew toward the most active and involved moderators of larger subreddits on the site.

        With good reason. We do a disproportionately large amount of moderation per moderator. Speaking of skew, your surveys according to you and kethryvis skew towards moderators of tiny subreddits with barely any traffic or moderator activity. If you're looking for pain points and satisfaction-per-moderator-action, you are way off base. The reason we tend to be involved in these discussions is because you're not surveying us, so we have no other way to be heard.

        I'm trying really hard not to be abrasive here, but seriously, how does this sound reasonable to you? One of these viewpoints is wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's not ours.

        [–]Sporkicide[A] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Wrong? I don't think so. Different? Definitely.

        We wanted feedback from all types of moderators. It's not that yours isn't more or less valuable than mods of smaller subreddits, but experience and needs may be not be the same across the board. We want to take those different usage cases into account in anything we do. As it is, we're pretty likely to hear from mods of default of major subreddits about problems they're having.

        The surveys were intended to represent the overall population of the site's active moderators. They appear to have served that purpose. The results might not match your experience, but that doesn't make either illegitimate. Part of the point of the survey is to reach moderators that haven't had that contact. Perhaps they do have the same issues as really active mods, perhaps they perceive something else to be a much bigger problem, we don't know unless we ask. Hence, research!

        [–]jakkarth 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I don't disagree that it's valuable to check in with moderators like the ones you're strongly skewed towards in that selection criteria. They'll obviously have a different perspective on moderating than I do, and that's a totally valid perspective to listen to.

        The issue is that you seem to have drawn conclusions based on the data you've collected that don't hold up. If you poll people to ask whether they think the fire department is doing a good job, most of the people you ask if you select them at random will say their response time is adequate. You're not likely to randomly select the person whose house is actually on fire right at that moment, if your criteria is "person who owns or rents a house."

        You're using this data to help inform your prioritization of mod tools, but you're not asking the people who moderate a lot, or people who moderate actively, or people that moderate high traffic subs. What good is it to ask people about moderation tools when they don't do enough moderation activity to actually need any?

        [–]agentlame 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        One thing to keep in mind is that participants in this discussion do skew toward the most active and involved moderators of larger subreddits on the site.

        You are, of course, referring to the mods that keep the site functioning and keeping reddit in business--literally. Why would you want to listen to them?

        [–]creesch 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        This is hilarious, I added that last bit in as an afterthought and that is all you respond to and then not even in detail.

        I absolutely believe it tracks consistently, I am just wondering out loud how you arrived at that number. Let me give you a few questions:

        1. Are you happy with the moderator tools available for moderators on reddit?
        2. Are you happy with the native moderator tools reddit provides?
        3. Are you happy with the native moderator tools reddit provides? This excludes any bots your subreddit might employ as well as extensions like toolbox (which includes usernotes, removal reasons, modbutton, historybutton, notifications for items in your queues, countersfor itmes in your queues).

        See, I have no trouble thinking that with the answers at question 1. you would arrive at the 14.5% number. With question number two it would be slightly less likely and with question 3. I would have to say "I don't believe you".

        Reddit without third party tools:

        1. Did not provide any moderator tools on mobile.
        2. Has almost everything except removing hidden away behind links hidden in the sidebar.

        So I remain skeptical about the percentage you listed. Unless of course your sample group simple isn't representative for people doing actual moderating in fairly active subreddits.

        Either way, I don't trust the number.

        But that is besides the point.

        I rather have that you respond to the other points.

        [–]kerovon 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        I think you should have the next toolbox update include a pop up survey right after the update. That should get a nice, fair, and balanced sample.

        [–]creesch 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Slightly biased sample group maybe, but not a bad idea. Next release we'll might include a nice google survey and see how that stacks up :P

        [–]kerovon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        You might be interested, I realized I have done their survey once before.

        The message invite I got. I don't know how they determine who gets it or not.

        [–]buzznights 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Survey me, /u/creesch!

        [–]Meepster23 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        That's not ideal, and it's something that we actively are working to be sure doesn't happen again.

        Are you making sure it doesn't happen again by just not bothering ever trying to involve the community? Because that's what I'm reading here.

        You are providing absolutely nothing of substance and it's all deflective, wishy-washy answers.

        What specifically are you doing to try and earn our trust back? Or, should we just "trust" you that you are working on it?

        [–]MajorParadox 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I think the issue a lot of mods take with that is just explaining it months ago would have been a huge difference. Saying it now instead makes it sound insincere, which I don't think was the intent.

        [–]GammaKing 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I have to say I'd thought relations with the admins were improving right up until CommunityDialogue suddenly died. Since then we seem to have returned to the older style of only providing minimal information and trying to underhandedly push through whatever you guys want without any real engagement whatsoever.

        [–]verdatum 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I think all of us would've agreed that admin time would best be spent putting out unexpected fires. And even agreed that many day-to-day operations should take higher priority than that communitydialogue effort. But I don't think the solution should ever have been full shutdown. Instead, I feel like it could've been to limit time spent on the effort to maybe 4 hours of admin-time per week. A small timechunk like that isn't going to matter one way or another related to putting out fires, but, managed well, it could've organized the mods involved into hashing out things like guideline wording and clarification on their own. After a week, spend a little time looking at where things are, provide some direction, "no this isn't what we wanted, we meant it needs to say X" or "That rule won't work because of this legal/business issue, please revise"

        I worry that this task was made to suffer for the sake of having something to show as "continuing improvement" and "lessons learned" in the aftermath of some emergency. Something like "We learned that too much admin time was being billed to communitydialogue instead of keeping an eye out for potentially dangerous witch-hunts. To prevent this, we've halted communitydialogue indefinitely"

        I feel like halting the effort meant cutting off the potential for dozens if not hundreds of hours in crowdsourced community-volunteer development on useful things like policy-complete-with-strong-consensus. I feel like things were not far off from becoming self-organized and paying off. Halting the project abruptly sours a lot of goodwill, and means you potentially lose access to a large chunk of that talent-pool.

        [–]Redbiertje 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Alright, fair is fair. These are better than I expected and a bit more concise than the draft posted months ago. Not by much, but still every bit counts.

        I just checked, and the difference is two lines. Not more.

        https://www.reddit.com/r/CommunityDialogue/comments/5y2ae6/long_awaited_updates_and_the_future_of_this_sub/demy3kf/

        [–]creesch 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        It is still better :P As I said every little bit counts when you start from almost zero. I am still not happy.

        [–]kerovon 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Management of Multiple Communities: We know management of multiple communities can be difficult, but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community. In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

        Until communities are actually isolated (which means robust antibrigading tools), this is not possible. As it currently is, you are asking us to manage them as something they are not.

        [–]allthefoxes 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Obligatory repost from other thread:

        Philippe, has there been any further discussion about breaking up the tools for admins?

        (Only wikipedia kids will know that meme)

        Seriously though, reddit suffers from a disconnect. Admins work hard and I recognize that..but there are only so many admins. Mods work hard too, and since they are more focused on smaller communities, they work faster - Mods work on instant results and quick, focused actions. Admins take a look at all these communites, and draw the big picture.

        And that's great - That makes perfect sense to me.

        The problem comes when issues arise above moderators, but aren't "big picture" - Don't get me wrong, everything is big picture when you think about it. Someone report spamming in /r/pics - they might be doing it elsewhere, or have issues elsewhere, or have an extensive history. I don't know. That's where the admins come in.

        But as a moderator..I still need that quick, lightning fast action. Because that's how I operate as a moderator.

        I can't possibly expect the admins to work on a mod's timescale while dealing what they have to deal with. Which leads to the whole issue that people face with "communication" - We work faster. We work on different timescales with different things. And since mods don't have the same powers, we have to go to admin. But admins don't work on our timescale. They work on admin timescale.

        So. Do mods need more powers? Debatable. A few small things I would like, yeah. But, that isn't sustainable and will cause issues if mod powers scale too far.

        Does reddit need more admins? Sure. Reddit has hired quite a few.. Response times are down. Reddit has been doing good.

        So what is the gap closer here? I can't pretend to have the answers, but I've been a very large supporter of the idea of global mods. Higher than mods, lower than admins..people that can work at the speed of mods, while passing information to admin.

        Does this solve everything? No. Does it come with it's own unique set of issues? Yes. Would it require a rework (code and mentality) of the operational standards reddit has run under for a long long time? Yes.

        Is this the only solution? Definitely not.

        But that gap will have to get closed one day, and I hope thought is being put into it.

        Thanks

        [–]glowingRadon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I've been thinking about the idea of global mods - it's a tool which would solve a lot of the spam and abuse on Reddit on a quicker timescale. The difference between Wikipedia and Reddit abuse/spam is users can act globally on Wikipedia. Volunteer sysops and other groups can use blocking, CheckUser, and other tools to mitigate abuse without needing to contact the WMF. Heck, even the global edit filter can be edited by volunteers.

        On Reddit, you need the cooperation of other mods for subs you don't have access to or the admins to be effective. Spammers don't see each sub as a separate community, they see it as just another place on Reddit to spam. They don't respect sub boundaries, while our anti-abuse tools do.

        I believe a global mod group can be extremely helpful. We can limit global mods to acting on just new accounts and have policy restrictions which limit global mods to spam and serious abuse issues.

        [–]marquis_of_chaos 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Seems like you are trying to treat us more like employees than volunteer moderators and content creators. There seems a lot in there that is saying that we must mod in a way that reddit thinks is best and not how we as mods think a sub should be run.

        I'm also very uncomfortable with "Reddit may, at its discretion, intervene to take control of a community when it believes it in the best interest of the community or the website." Why should I create and moderate a sub if at any time the admins could take it over, throw me out or put another user in charge?

        [–]Umdlye 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Seems like you are trying to treat us more like employees than volunteer moderators and content creators. There seems a lot in there that is saying that we must mod in a way that reddit thinks is best and not how we as mods think a sub should be run.

        The guidelines are based on best practices identified by a wide variety of moderators and long-standing issues with reddit moderation. /r/history is one of the best moderated subreddits around, which of these guidelines are not common sense to you or any of the people you mod with?

        I'm also very uncomfortable with "Reddit may, at its discretion, intervene to take control of a community when it believes it in the best interest of the community or the website." Why should I create and moderate a sub if at any time the admins could take it over, throw me out or put another user in charge?

        I believe that was added to provide a safeguard against rogue moderators killing/shutting down a subreddit. I don't think any reasonable moderator will end up on the wrong end of that.

        [–]creesch 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        The guidelines are based on best practices identified by a wide variety of moderators and long-standing issues with reddit moderation.

        The fuck are you talking about? They are maybe ever so slightly inspired by one or two things people said in /r/communityDialogue but really aren't based on that. If that was the case they would look really different.

        [–]imnoidiot5 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        How would any hypothetical enforcement work? What if moderators have a different understanding of words in the guidelines than users?

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        As it says in the document itself, we hope that enforcement won’t be necessary. For most of you, it absolutely won’t, because this is how you already run your communities; these guidelines were inspired by what you are already doing right and what you told us. But if it is necessary to enforce, we will approach it the same way we do with our sitewide rules. Our first goal is to talk and educate, to make sure that the mods and users we’re working with understand the rules and why they’re there. Then we’ll work with them to come into compliance. We really believe this heads off most problems before they become overarching issues.

        [–]Phallindrome 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

        What are my responsibilities for the subreddits I currently hold privately? (/r/kissing, /r/CBC) In both cases, I would like to take them public, but they'll involve a lot of work. What's a long period of time? Does this rule count equally for subreddits that are inactive/private/only a few subscribers, and subreddits with active communities?

        (Also, if anyone in this thread reeeeeallly likes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or making out, please contact me.)

        [–]ShaneH7646 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

        I had a good laugh at this particular part. do you have to follow this?

        [–]AtomicEleven 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Their definition of reasonable is 4+ months from what I've gathered, don't worry.

        [–]devperez 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Lol. Of course not

        [–]reseph 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Association to a Brand: We love that so many of you want to talk about brands and provide a forum for discussion. Remember to always flag your community as “unofficial” and be clear in your community description that you don’t actually represent that brand.

        So this is going to be enforced I see. What if moderators of video game subreddits don't start doing this, or ignore this rule? Are you just going to shut down the subreddit if they refuse? Can you talk about how enforcement works?

        On my subreddits I'm fine with throwing in "unofficial" or "fan community", just curious.

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        So this is going to be enforced I see. What if moderators of game subreddits don't start doing this, or ignore this rule? Are you just going to shut down the subreddit if they refuse? Can you talk about how enforcement works?

        Largely, this would be driven by a brand complaint. I think it's reasonable that if BobsGames says "hey, dude is saying he's from BobsGames" and you're not, we would reach out and ask you to add "unofficial" to the name. We'll talk to you, talk about the legalities, etc, but then if all else fails, I think we'd just add "unofficial" ourselves or something. I'm not inclined to ban a whole community over something like that.

        [–]reseph 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Right okay, makes sense.

        [–]Mispelling 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        So, these are more what you would call rules than actual guidelines then?

        [–]wickedplayer494 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

        I'm not sure how I feel with this one. /u/qgyh2 himself has stated when asked about why he still remains king on many popular subreddits that the only reason he does so is so that he can step in if something goes really, really, REALLY wrong, but otherwise leaves things to lower mods. One such example of that in action being a few years ago with /r/Canada, where he stepped in and held an impeachment vote when people were protesting against a single mod, and they got ousted as a result.

        With that said, qgyh2's activity does seem to have fallen off compared to when he did that /r/Canada impeachment, so there may still be a point to this (if the intent is to obsolete it as a reason, though that spawns a new problem of "what if they're being bad while still skirting the 'guidelines'"), but I think his reasoning was sound.

        [–]Shagomir 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I saw this pointed at moderators who are just sitting on a mod list and don't do anything. One of my subs has an inactive top mod - he's active on Reddit so we can't really reddit request him away, and he's actively told users NOT to contact him with moderation-related business, because he is "not active as a moderator on the subreddit". When I contacted him and asked him to step down, he refused.

        However, because he's the top mod, he could at any time unseat the entire mod team and take over the subreddit unilaterally.

        During one of the Community Dialog calls, I spoke with Phillipe about this iisue and he assured me that Reddit would be taking steps to give moderators an avenue for resolving these types of issues. To me, this is an expression of that.

        [–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I think he's talking about a /u/ragwort style situation.

        [–]RandomPrecision1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        mrw: why, what subreddits does he modera...oh holy shit

        [–]elfa82 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (9子コメント)

        In the vein of transparency, are there any plans to actually do anything about brigading, like even define it? For instance, this thread was brigaded by voat's fph with tons of assholes harassing the OP causing him to delete his account. It took days to get a canned response of "we'll look into it." Seemingly no action was taken as we still get modmails from people that we banned that were obviously part of the brigade.

        In regards to timely responses, why is it that reports of ban evasion (case in point) or report abuse take days to get a response?

        Again with timely responses, why is /r/redditrequest not run by a bot? Having a week, to month to never to get a response there sucks.

        Do the new guidelines mean that inactive squatters will finally be removed from subs? Or if they pop in once every month and do a single mod action do they get to keep their spot?

        If we don't think a user is part of our community, nor do we want them there, does that give us free reign to be dicks to them?

        [–]sodypop[A] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        I'll take a stab at "brigading" and clarifying a definition, though I may regret this later...

        We define brigading as intentional community interference, which typically plays out via comments or voting enacted by a group. This includes targeted group behavior that maliciously interferes with or encourages interference in the operation of an existing and separate community. This does not include organic and non targeted cross-community participation or simple discussion of other communities. Simply linking to a post where people follow and participate on isn't always considered to be interference.

        That said, there are a lot of instances where something may seem "brigaded" but actually weren't. We are also always improving how we mitigate improper voting with automated systems to discourage or prevent this type of behavior without impacting organic voting. That isn't to say the example you provided did not incur some interference, that certainly does seem to be the case.

        Another source of confusion regarding this topic is that when actual brigading occurs and is reported to us, we don't typically issue permanent suspensions to users for vote manipulation. Since our aim is to educate rather than punish, we will usually give users a warning message or issue a temporary suspension. Since there is no visible indication that an account was temporarily suspended, often times mods or users will assume we never took any action.

        In regards to timely responses, why is it that reports of ban evasion (case in point) or report abuse take days to get a response?

        This is certainly something that can be improved. Scaling the Trust & Safety team to handle these in a more timely is a big part of it, however with regards to the overall scheme of rule enforcement, these types of issues have a lower priority than more critical issues such as inciting violence or other more time-sensitive tasks. It's not that we don't think they are important to deal with, it's just that other more pressing matters often require these to take a back seat.

        Again with timely responses, why is /r/redditrequest not run by a bot? Having a week, to month to never to get a response there sucks.

        This actually is assisted by a bot (/u/request_bot) that I wrote several years before working here. I'm totally not a programmer so there are several places where this script could be improved. However, there are numerous factors we have to take into consideration to determine activity on the site. As the guidelines in this post indicate, there will be some reworking of the criteria for what constitutes being an active mod with regards to how requests are evaluated. There should be some opportunities to improve the bot along with whatever criteria we land on.

        If we don't think a user is part of our community, nor do we want them there, does that give us free reign to be dicks to them?

        Being a dick to someone is not something we'll ever advocate for as remembering the human is one of reddit's core values. If you don't want someone in your community my advice is to ban them and explain why they were banned if it's not clear. If they come back with a new account, then report them to us for evading.

        [–]Jakeable 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I'm totally not a programmer so there are several places where this script could be improved.

        If you want any help making those fixes, I'd be happy to volunteer some time :)

        [–]Niezo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Another source of confusion regarding this topic is that when actual brigading occurs and is reported to us, we don't typically issue permanent suspensions to users for vote manipulation. Since our aim is to educate rather than punish, we will usually give users a warning message or issue a temporary suspension. Since there is no visible indication that an account was temporarily suspended, often times mods or users will assume we never took any action.

        Quite some time ago in /r/CommunityDialogue I mentioned this:

        I'm only a small time mod, and have only been for about a year, so I might not understand the frustrations completely but...

        The frustrations I notice from the moderators towards the admins remind me a bit of the frustrations from users to moderators. That is, they feel like the moderators are either doing to much or nothing. And it's only a pretty recent thing that people are really noticing the difference between proper moderated and improper moderated subreddits.

        So, if(and that's only if) admins really doing their best to help moderators, I suspect its because we can't see it. For us, moderators, the company Reddit is something we can't see. We don't see what's happening inside. Are admins really doing their best to battle ban evaders? Are admins really trying to stop brigading? Spam? There are still issues that the admins clearly need to work better on(communication for one thing, the karma for self posts being an obvious example), but it's impossible for us to tell if admins are really working for us, or just see us as lapdogs. And when appreciation is rarely shown it's easy too see how it can lead to distrust with those circumstances, even if the admins are trying their best.

        I remember that someone mentioned it would be a good idea if admins would work as moderators as well, and I think that that would be a good idea. Especially considering that almost all frustrations originate from the lack of communication.

        I know that this isn't the thread for a reply like this, but I wanted to say this before I forget.

        After my recent collaboration with Achievement I talked about in my other comment, I'm inclined to believe that even more, as I've seen a bit 'behind the scenes' as a result.

        I've been thinking; is it perhaps an idea to give moderators and users what roughly a 'day of an admin' is? Of course, many of you fulfill different roles for Reddit. But I think that besides admins talking more to moderators about their problems, the reverse is also important: what kind of challenges admins face. What the biggest frustrations of their job is, and what the best is about their job.

        I imagine that that might be difficult as not everything can obviously be said; but figured I would share my thoughts.

        [–]elfa82 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Thank you for the answer. While ban evasion is not something that is a priority for you, it is to us as mods. For example, in the message I linked above, that user has repeatedly ban evaded on multiple subs and multiple accounts. They are well aware of the rules and don't care because at worst you guys just ask if he'll please stop. Meanwhile he's already on a new account ban evading again.

        We define brigading as intentional community interference, which typically plays out via comments or voting enacted by a group. This includes targeted group behavior that maliciously interferes with or encourages interference in the operation of an existing and separate community. This does not include organic and non targeted cross-community participation or simple discussion of other communities. Simply linking to a post where people follow and participate on isn't always considered to be interference.

        So basically unless the OP specifically says go vote or comment, then it's not considered brigading? Does that mean that subs like /r/subredditdrama should no longer enforce their no commenting or voting in a linked thread rule? It's a pain in the ass to enforce or even catch and it always brings in people that are above the rules because they "should be able to comment and vote as they please." I guarantee if I open the the top thread I will find it full of people that are soveriegn citizens of reddit that follow links from our sub to comment and vote even though it used to be against the rules. Oh look, here's one right here Has never commented in that sub before, is banned from SRD for "brigading" and is only there to argue in a 2 day old thread. But since OP in SRD didn't specifically say go vote or comment, it's not brigading.

        [–]Niezo 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        In the vein of transparency, are there any plans to actually do anything about brigading, like even define it? For instance, this thread was brigaded by voat's fph with tons of assholes harassing the OP causing him to delete his account. It took days to get a canned response of "we'll look into it." Seemingly no action was taken as we still get modmails from people that we banned that were obviously part of the brigade.

        I personally agree on that point, even though I've argued heavily against the auto-ban. Anti-brigading tools for mods have been overdue.

        Again with timely responses, why is /r/redditrequest not run by a bot? Having a week, to month to never to get a response there sucks.

        So on this note, I have to strongly disagree. I can't give you the exact details... but I had requested a very vulnerable(selfharm-support oriented) community a while ago and asked for a special exception to make it a bit quicker.

        Turns out, the whole situation was a bit more... messy and it involved someone very toxic and had to cooperate with /u/AchievementUnlockd for an entire week to settle what could have gotten much worse. (seriously, shoutout to you Achievement, I'm really happy that I pinged you back then)

        As such, I disagree about running with it with a bot. Subreddit transferal should be done carefully, or it can go wrong. Very wrong.

        [–]picflute 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Those edge cases shouldn't be an immediate denial to automation.

        [–]Niezo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        They may be edge cases, but the problem is what can happen when those edge cases do go wrong. The fallout from that might affect things much worse. On top of that, if automation would affect those cases poorly then the admins may have to deal with more then just 'a backlog of redditrequests'. And more work on the plates on the admins would help no one.

        [–]picflute -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Yet the majority reap the benefits and the admins can be full time on edge cases as they normally should be.

        [–]Niezo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Would they? As I said, the admins will have to deal with extreme fallout should it go wrong.

        On top of that, in the case of extreme support subreddits, the consequences can be disastrous. And believe me when I say that if Achievement hadn't interfered properly it most likely would have ended that way. Is waiting for a month really that worse compared to potential drama in selfharm subreddits? I don't think so.

        [–]GammaKing 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        Respect the Platform. Reddit may, at its discretion, intervene to take control of a community when it believes it in the best interest of the community or the website. This should happen rarely (e.g., a top moderator abandons a thriving community), but when it does, our goal is to keep the platform alive and vibrant, as well as to ensure your community can reach people interested in that community. Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

        I see the "ban on blackouts"/"we can take over any community at will" rule stayed. It seems pretty obvious that there's been very little consideration for the objections raised in CommunityDialogue, just who are you trying to fool here?

        [–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (7子コメント)

        It's pretty reasonable that they're trying to avoid that happening again. When a group of users could shut down the site for any reason (including no reason at all, like last time) that's not really good for consistency and planning.

        [–]IAMAVelociraptorAMA 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Agreed. 99% of reddit doesn't give a fuck about mod tools or if an employee gets fired or any of that shit.

        [–]GammaKing 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Do you think that without the previous blackout we'd have features like the new mod mail, sub rules, supposedly better communication, etc? I could appreciate ruling against blackouts if they hadn't recently gone straight back to the behaviours which forced the original blackout. Trying to drop policy changes like this in spite of opposition, then simply not replying to comments like mine and walking away, is not an acceptable approach if you want to build trust.

        [–]spling44 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        So when do you guys cut me my first paycheque?

        [–]iBleeedorange 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

        So you're expecting mods of subreddits to be more transparent than the admins on everything listed.

        Actions speak louder than words, if you're going to make mods be set to a higher standard perhaps the admins should lead by example... After all, we're not paid to be here. We do it out of the goodness of our heart, and the shit we take from it makes it really hard to understand why we're set to a much higher standard when the reasonable things (not everything asked for is reasonable, I understand) we would like seem to be placed on the back burner for everything else. It really feels like the reddit direction is almost never in common with what the mods need to better moderate reddit.

        [–]english06 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        5) Respect the Platform. Reddit may, at its discretion, intervene to take control of a community when it believes it in the best interest of the community or the website. This should happen rarely (e.g., a top moderator abandons a thriving community), but when it does, our goal is to keep the platform alive and vibrant, as well as to ensure your community can reach people interested in that community. Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

        Are there any guidelines for how to go about doing this? This seems like a huge win for moderator teams, but seems vague. I am sure intentionally so. Is it simply a matter of making your case in /r/reddit.com modmail and seeing what comes of it?

        [–]Sporkicide[A] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        That's definitely one of the things we want to address but we are still working out the exact process for how it should work.

        [–]english06 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        For sure. This is one of my favorite moves to come from this whole thing and I am sure a lot of subs would really like to take you all up on this new top mod squatting policy. I hope we can get more information soon.

        [–]daebro 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I can't tell you how many subs I've worked with where the entire mod team does nothing or just a few people do all the work while the other guys just hang out in the mod club.

        [–]TheDroolinFool 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I applied to join r/communitydialogue but didn't get added as I was late to the party. Any chance you can add me?

        In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

        This is excellent news - I've come across communities in the past which have been practically destroyed by moderators who simply "sit on" them and do nothing but are "active" enough that the r/redditrequest process fails, allowing them to hang on to said community despite the fact it should be handed over to someone else. I'm very happy to see this is something the admins are looking into.

        [–]The_Asian_Hamster 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Something that would be great is the ability to search modmail, either for conversations with a certain user in the past, or keywords

        In fact the search system on the whole site isnt great, but thats another matter

        [–]Tim-Sanchez 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I've got to admit I am seriously disappointed...

        I'm glad you followed through and updated us, but I'm seriously disappointed that /r/CommunityDialogue fizzled out like this. I was genuinely looking forward to it leading to improved moderator/admin relations, and it seemed like you were taking our concerns seriously. For it to end like this is a real kick in the teeth.

        I won't go into why because I think other people have expressed that very well, put simply it's not at all what we expected when we entered that project.

        It seems like a never ending cycle. The admins screw up, they introduce some new initiative, mods are pleased, the initiative fizzles out, the mods are displeased, then the admins screw up etc etc. I commented this before it started as well.

        If I can end this with two questions:

        1. Are you satisfied with how /r/CommunityDialogue ended up?

        2. Is this all you expected /r/CommunityDialogue would lead to when it started?

        /u/redtaboo as the admin who started this, and someone who seemed genuinely excited and passionate about the project, I'd like to extend the above two questions to you as well.

        [–]aedeos 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        I own /r/aedeos, but never use it. Does that mean if someone wants it, they can request it out from under me even if I'm active?

        [–]analogboy56 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I would like to officially request /r/aedeos

        [–]greatgerm 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Should I put in the reddit request now?

        [–]tizorres 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Will you be linking these mod guidelines in an /about/ or /wiki/ page for future reference? If so where will they be located.

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        They'll be linked to a wiki page, absolutely. We're still figuring out which. We'll likely also link them from the footer or something.

        [–]Piconeeks 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        This is a pretty bold move away from the "anything goes" lassies faire Reddit of the past.

        I'd just like to say that I really appreciate this step towards a little bit more of an active management stance from the admins. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the other mods in this section, and I'd just like to add that I believe that these guidelines are fundamentally a step in the right direction—even if this isn't a perfect iteration in and of itself.

        [–]allthefoxes 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        We are supposed to treat communities seperately despite brigading still being a curtain drawn in front of our faces?

        [–]MajorParadox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        FYI, number 1 is italics and the rest are bold. Was that a typo?

        [–]gameboyzapgbz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Clear, Concise, and Consistent Guidelines:

        Secret Guidelines aren’t fair to your users—transparency is important to the platform.

        r/nintendo is going to need to make some changes.

        [–]purplespengler 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        This feels a lot like Reddit holding unpaid volunteers to standards that are more appropriate for customer service employees, and it's kind of insulting. I don't appreciate the attempt to meddle so heavily in the way we moderate, nor do I appreciate that I had zero opportunity whatsoever to participate in the construction of these naive guidelines. I especially don't appreciate how little respect I see in this for the fact that every single moderator on this website is keeping it afloat on a completely volunteer basis with no compensation.

        It’s not appropriate to attack your own users.

        This is ridiculous and divorced from reality. Moderators should not have to be concerned that not putting up with the rude shitheads that make up the majority of our interactions will result in an Admin swooping down to remove them from their position. Until I see a paycheck from Reddit in my bank account, it is not appropriate for Reddit to dictate my behavior as a moderator to this degree. Moderators are not customer service and you should not expect us to be.

        Secret Guidelines aren’t fair to your users—transparency is important to the platform.

        This is ridiculous and divorced from reality. Reddit is full of both legitimate users and spammers that are constantly fishing for ways to get their posts where they don't belong. "Secret Guidelines" are one of the strongest weapons we have to combat it. Should we start publishing our entire AutoMod ruleset now to comply with this nonsense?

        Furthermore, sometimes "Secret Guidelines" exist just by virtue of the fact that listing every single restriction that we have would not only be tedious and absurd, but create even more arguments that are a complete waste of time by Rules Lawyers.

        Appeals to your actions should be taken seriously.

        This is ridiculous and divorced from reality. Until I see a paycheck from Reddit in my bank account, it is not appropriate for Reddit to dictate how seriously I take the hundreds of arguments and appeals I receive, the overwhelming majority of which are from people who have zero interest in following or understanding rules - only in getting their way.

        Reddit may, at its discretion, intervene to take control of a community when it believes it in the best interest of the community or the website.

        Respectfully, it's been my experience that Reddit the entity knows absolutely nothing about what is in the best interest of any community. Forgive me if I have very little faith that this will be exercised appropriately.

        Finally, when the admins contact you, we ask that you respond within a reasonable amount of time.

        Bluntly: Get better at holding yourselves to this standard first, and then we can have a dialog about moderators doing the same.

        Bottom line: The only thing you accomplish with most of this nonsense is increase your own workload and give shitheaded users another button they think they can push to get their way.

        [–]permaculture 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Community = subreddit?

        [–]kethryvis[A] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        At their hearts, subreddits are communities :)

        [–]imnoidiot5 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        All subbies are commies?

        [–]thirdegree 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        :rolled_up_newspaper: no, bad imnoidiot5

        [–]Mustaka 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Engage in Good Faith

        This is terribly worded. I run /r/pussypassdenied and we constantly get people who are there not in good faith but to stir trouble. Been doing this long enough you can spot them instantly. We troll back constantly and do not mind being harassed ourselves. It is part of why our community has grown to the size it is.

        In fact thinking about it this whole policy change reads terrible.

        [–]zslayer89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

        Will there be a way to add removal reasons to the wiki pages of a subreddit, and that can be accessed by the mobile/APP team so that when we do mobile moderation we are providing concise feedback to our users regarding rule violations?

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

        That's an interesting point. This feels to me like a very good reason to use the structured rules that u/powerlanguage is advocating for so strongly lately. With those in place, I think many challenges like you point out will be elegantly handled.

        [–]zslayer89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Could you link me to the structured rules that you are talking about? Thank you.

        [–]allthefoxes 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Should just be /r/subbie/rules

        [–]zslayer89 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Ah. But that's just general rules.

        I'm hoping that we can have a removal reason wiki that can be accessed by the mobile site/official app when moderating.

        [–]AchievementUnlockd[S,A] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Paging u/powerlanguage. :)

        [–]lightrider44 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Please remove u/theymos from r/Bitcoin. He has been the most abusive mod I've seen in my life. And worse, he's doing it for monetary gain.

        [–]AssuredlyAThrowAway 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Love the mod guidelines!

        Thank you guys so much for finally taking some steps to provide oversight of moderators beyond simply the prime directive :)

        [–]brucemo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        You guys are doing a poor job of responding to admin mail, and as a mod I treat you like emperors living in a far off city, who don't know that I exist, and to whom I should be grateful if I receive a crumb of anything.

        My last admin mail has been fermenting for 9 days. Since it contains a question regarding policy, I expected this. It's really hard to get an answer to questions regarding your rules.

        The reason I'm saying this here, is where else should I say it? You guys can't make a meta community for two-way conversation that doesn't immediately die.

        [–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

        If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

        [–]devperez 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I hate to agree with TD, but that sounds about right. The admins will use this to get rid of mods in subs they disagree with.

        [–]flapyourwings 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Oh, T_D...

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]Norci 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Cool, I'll give it a read once you give us tools to track and tackle ban-evaders, as well as something against brigading. Till then, I don't think you're in a place to put demands on volunteer mods who already have shitloads on their plates.

          [–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Have you ever modmailed /r/reddit.com about ban evaders? They're really good at getting back to you.

          Also, they've talked in the past about how brigading is less of a big deal than the community often thinks it is, and they have backend tools that help mitigate the effect.

          [–]Norci 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Have you ever modmailed /r/reddit.com about ban evaders? They're really good at getting back to you.

          Yeah, quite few times. Sometimes they are quick, sometimes it falls between the cracks and takes days while the guy is going lose on the subreddit with a dozen of alt accounts. Sometimes they can't do anything because the knowledge of banevasion only comes from something the users said.

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)