Source
r/metanarchism•
sync0pate

Moderation policy

For a while now, the moderation policy here has been to ban obvious bigots and spammers on sight, and to go to a vote for anyone in the grey area.

Some of the moderators are just flat out completely ignoring this, and banning a lot of people without going through any of the process that the subreddit decided on.

I removed the banned person from this thread, because none of the process had been followed - no meta thread, no entry in the mod log.

A few hours later, it seems everyone is leaning towards banning the person anyway, cool, but then they are banned again, without reference to the thread, without waiting the 48 hours (or any reasonable amount of time).

If people want to change the moderation policy to allow moderators more personal discretion, that's one thing, but at the moment some moderators are using their discretion for things that the sub hasn't agreed on. I don't think that's cool at all.

I am getting private messages about this kind of thing on a regular basis - some of them from obvious trolls and racists, some of them from genuinely confused people who have just been caught in the crossfire or worded something clumsily.

Posted Nov 23, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

1168
sync0pateOP•

regarding u/TAEHSAEN , they were probably going to be banned anyway, after that thread. I don't think it's cool that u/Voltairinede has massively jumped the gun on this though. This is the kind of thing that leads to another min_thamee situation.

For now I'm going to do what I did with min, change the ban to a temp ban, and give them a warning to do some reading, hang out in r/Anarchy101 , and come back in a month. - IF anyone disagrees with this, make a thread, we'll have a proper vote, like we should have in the first place.

I'm doing this to stop a game of ban/unban tennis before it starts.

I'm not taking any action against any of the moderators for any of this at this time, I've got zero time or patience left for it.

10
Voltairinede•

Okay sure everyone can continue to waste time and energy on pointless freeze peaches concern trolls. For what benefit, I have no idea, but sure.

2†
sync0pateOP•

For the benefit of letting everyone be involved in decisions rather than it just being at mine or your discretion.

7
fuckspeciesism•

A community is larger than just you. It responds to the wants and needs of more than just you.

4†
Voltairinede•

Oh sorry I hadn't realised.

-2†
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Another_Dupont•

Thanks for erasing my voice just because it doesn't fit your narrative of "community" here.

-5†
fuckspeciesism•

A community is larger than just you. It responds to the wants and needs of more than just you.

1†
[deleted]•

[removed]

-4
sync0pateOPMOD•

Please refrain from participating in here until your ban is up, you agreed to take some time out and learn what the issue was.

Thanks.

10
insurgentclass•

I've noticed the same thing on several occasions: Threads are started asking for a user to be banned (or simply warned) and certain moderators will wade in and ban the user in question without waiting the 48 hours or checking for consensus.

It's even worse when they don't (or refuse to) post transparency threads. If a moderator doesn't want (or can't be bothered) to post one then maybe they should reconsider being a moderator in the first place. Especially if they were elected under the pretense that moderation is transparent.

Transparency exists as a check against abuse of power. I recall a certain moderator who was recently demodded after another user noticed they were deleting comments and threads for no other reason than they disagreed with them (nothing in them violated the AOP). Because the moderator didn't post transparency threads it was up to another user to discover the pattern of behaviour and call out a blatant abuse of power. This wouldn't of been possible if it wasn't for the transparency tools we already have in place.

If the problem is that none of these rules are written down, then we should write them down. When I stumble across situations like this I'm reminded of the 'tyranny of structureless': Certain people don't want to codify the rules because to do so would be to formal and against the 'spirit' of anarchism but then those same people use the lack of structure to their advantage. This is why we have formal rules and structure, because it keeps these people in check, it holds them accountable and it stops them from using the space as a place to vent and abuse others.

I think the obvious solution is to decide on and write down a code of conduct for moderators. One that, if the users decide it, includes creating transparency threads for every ban and I would even go as far as making moderators explain why they delete threads and comments to. Either in the moderator log, in r/metanarchism or in the original thread.

Though I can imagine that isn't going to be as simple as I made it sound.

6
sync0pateOP•

I think you're right, but it will be tricky.

Until then, if you want to help keeping an eye on what moderation is happening, we have the transparency mod log - and you can let me know if you see anything problematic.

6
hextic•

Violations of sub consensus and process are whether meant as one or not, are an attack on the sub and should be viewed in the same light as any other egregious problematic behavior.

It may be worth considering that mods who engage in problematic behavior such as attacking the sub, its process, and its consensus are not immune to the same treatment as other non-mod members who engage in problematic behavior that demonstrates a willful disregard for our processes and procedures.

I guarantee the few bad apples would stop being bad apples real quick, or we would simply lose all the bad apples.

5
sync0pateOP•

Agreed.

The problem being, if I am particularly strict on moderators for this then it is seen as me exercising too much of my own personal judgement, which isn't desirable either.

I think the best solution is to get a code of conduct for moderators formalised as quickly as possible, then I can easily remove anyone who acts contrary to that.

3
hextic•

I could definitely get behind that. We need more than "I totally swear this is how it's always been done" to counter individual mods just deciding otherwise, an actual document we can point to and say "Well, you violated 2(c)(iii) blatantly."

1
Rein3•

Lately meta has been dead... I'd guess that's why no transparency or gray areas...

3
sync0pateOP•

Or vice versa..

5
Voltairinede•

I mean the only time it wasn't dead in the recent past was when it was used by rival clique's to war with each other.

The whole time I have been active it has never been used by any significant amount of r/anarchism.

0†
sync0pateOP•

Most people don't give a shit, and that's fine, doesn't mean we should take the option away for them to have a say.

8
Voltairinede•

I don't see how me banning this idiot in anyway removes people's ability to ''have a say'', if they all 'have a say' that they should be banned or not them I would obviously implement such a decision, banning them now just saves people time and energy.

0†
sync0pateOP•

If you ban them without any reason or thread to say that you've done it, then most people don't know it's even happened, so that's how.

9
by_signing_up•

I don't see how me banning this idiot in anyway removes people's ability to ''have a say''

You should probably step down if you don't understand that making decisions for others is denying them their say on whichever matter. Furthermore, if the reason you're banning people without input from others is because you don't want the thread to end up on r/subredditdrama, then you should definitely step down. I don't buy that reasoning and that just comes off as a ridiculous excuse for why you don't want start a thread for proposing a ban.

3
statusincorporated•

I don't see how me banning this idiot in anyway removes people's ability to ''have a say''

....

lol

2†
Hannibal_Lecturer•

Good call

1
[deleted]•

I warned everyone about getting rid of min_thamee. ^^Kidding ^^^^sorta

1
punkswcleankitchens•

redditor for two days

2
[deleted]•

Old account was airwave87, or something like that.

I delete accounts every once in a while.

2
punkswcleankitchens•

Oh, word

1
Vindalfr•

Wasn't there a recent "project" to compile the rules we have voted on and have that posted publicly rather being lost in the stacks?

0
Another_Dupont•

Not to be difficult, but I can't find any documentation requiring mods to justify a ban. Could you clarify on this?

My understanding is that, if the community was overwhelmingly in opposition to the specific action(s) of a specific mod, then those actions would be undone and a separate discussion could occur in regards to what happens to the mod who overstepped. In all other cases, mods are assumed to have acted in good faith.

The whole point of this is that, yes, we are delegating power to the mods, and yes, that can be abused... but even in this case, the user TAESAEN/whatevs starting complaining in met@ and it rapidly became obvious why they totally deserved a ban.

The user initiated a discussion over the legitimacy of their ban, and the community came to a consensus on the matter. The system worked exactly as it should.

-1†
sync0pateOP•

Yeah a lot of this isn't written down other than in the threads where it was decided several years ago..

It was also decided that we should wait 48 hours to give people a chance to participate, before carrying out a ban.

4
Another_Dupont•

As far as documented policy goes, there is no requirement mods provide their reasoning for a ban. Similarly, any user can start a thread appealing a ban. IMO, this provides for accountability when its needed, without needless bureaucracy when it isn't.

-2†
sync0pateOP•

There is a lot of established policy that isn't documented outside of the threads where it was created.

This is a problem, but it doesn't mean it should suddenly be ignored.

2
Another_Dupont•

I wholly agree. I'm no good at coding, but I'd be happy to collate everything into a single document if y'all provide me links. I'm not trying to overturn any policy here, so if I'm in error regarding the accountability process I apologize.

4
insurgentclass•

Ah, the tyranny of structurelessness. Nobody wrote down the rules so nobody has to obey them.

2
lilit_•

They are an obvious bigot

-1†
sync0pateOP•

In the same way that to me, you're an obvious troll.

9
lilit_•

That makes no sense. I obviously participate in good faith. They said obviously transphobic shit. You have a history of not getting trans issues.

-2†
sync0pateOP•

They said obviously transphobic shit.

I know that. You know that. I think they didn't know that.

You have a history of not getting trans issues.

And a few years ago there were a hell of a lot more issues I didn't get. That didn't make me a transphobe, it's never meant I wasn't willing to learn.

Maybe you were born knowing all this stuff, some of us weren't, some of us need to learn somewhere, and I think if people are participating in good faith then they should have the opportunity to do so.

That's why it seems right to me that the user has been banned temporarily and told they need to educate themselves before they can participate.

9
-Enkara-Literally Thought Police - weeewoooweewooo•

Shadowban 'em

-3†
sync0pateOP•

Who?

I think that's a conversation worth having though, we have tools like automoderator and temporary bans that we didn't have when we first made the moderation guidelines for this sub.

4
-Enkara-Literally Thought Police - weeewoooweewooo•

I'm soooooo not trying to be that constructive here. Just get mods you think are out of control shadowbanned.

-1†
sync0pateOP•

Oh, my mistake. Good one.

3
lilit_•

rip cosmic

1†