[–] Atko 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Thank you for the ideas.

Most of your points are very difficult to implement both technically and socially. Your end goal is to prevent moderators from becoming power users. This means there should be no no way around the system and partially prevent is not acceptable.

  1. Even with the discussion being made public, mods can still do as they please. This does not achieve your goal - total prevention.

  2. Who gets to decide what ends up in /deleted section and what doesn't? Mods. Doesn't achieve your goal.

  3. See 2

  4. This would make sense but it would also require pretty large manpower on our end. I can see this working on a small scale, but things would start to pile up if we grew. Imagine thousands of posts per hour and a staff of, say 30 people. This is definitely a viable option however.

  5. This is already implemented on a per-account basis. Current limit is 10 subs. IP addresses can be changed easily so that part is technically impossible to implement.

  6. Technically challenging and very interesting, but it doesn't achieve your goal.

  7. Impossible to enforce.

  8. Mods could write anything in the explanation field and still delete the post. Doesn't achieve your goal.

As much as I want to prevent mods from doing as they please, the most viable option for us would be to create an official sub where community can start a discussion about "removal of mod x from sub y for reason z" with a possibility for voting (given only to accounts which have a certain number of CCPs). Based on the outcome, we could take action and remove the sub from default sets (we will soon move to set layout).

I hope my comment doesn't sound too harsh, I really did not mean anything bad, I am just trying to be as realistic as I can.

Please keep the ideas coming. Thank you.


[–] SuperConductiveRabbi [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks for the reply, and it's pretty cool that the site owner is so involved! The early days of a site like this are great.

I should clarify that though my goal is total prevention, I recognize that that's impossible. My realistic goal is to simply improve the situation. Imperfect checks and balances are better than nothing.

  1. Say a subverse starts silencing a topic, or multiple subverses conspire to do so (e.g., "we're going to stop our users from talking about Zoe Quinn"). When the modmails come out it'd cause a controversy, and if a user ever once proves a mod uses a mailing list or IRC to talk to others under the table, that subverse could be un-defaulted.

  2. The purpose of /deleted would be to make solutions like /r/undeleted unnecessary. It'd be a cleaner and automatic way to guarantee that deletions at least have some place to live.

  3. Ditto, and a mod should have the ability to delete things, but not from /rejected or /deleted. It'd still get us closer to preventing mods from getting too much power

  4. True, but does that mean Reddit just trusts mods entirely when it comes to anti-doxxing measures? Also, it might be possible to take no action here and the community will sort it out. People will have screenshots of posts that suddenly disappear with the label "this won't appear on /deleted because it contained doxxing," and can prove it.

  5. Reddit bans by IP address still, showing it's at least partially useful. If you have a VPN and keep switching accounts eventually you'll screw up (unless you have air-tight opsec), and once you do the account could be flagged for review by the admins.

  6. The goal for this one was to give users an idea about whether that subverse is their sort of place. Some people like highly curated spaces

  7. Probably hard, yeah, but leaked modmails and screenshots on Reddit prove mods are conspiring all the time...

  8. It definitely gets us closer to having more oversight. Mods that just fill the "deleted for" field with junk wouldn't be tolerated by the community

I didn't suggest the "let the community vote mods out" because I was worried about witch hunts. Communities often get it wrong as often as mods, and there are trolls that just want to cause drama. What if SRS is a bigger subreddit than, say, /v/MensRights, and starts voting to remove all their mods?


[–] Atko 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sweet! Things make much more sense now that you accept that the checks would be imperfect and that no total prevention is technically possible. Public moderation logs, automatic archiving of deleted threads and comments, forcing reason for deletion labels - are all realistic features from my point of view - which I'm sure we'll implement at some point. I'll write these down and open github issues for each and every one that I see a technically possible implementation for. Thank you for voicing your concerns and giving us ideas. Please keep them coming :)

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)



[–] SuperConductiveRabbi [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

For an example of what you're describing check out https://panopticlick.eff.org/

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 



[–] MaleGoddess 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

isn't there just one admin right now?


[–] SuperConductiveRabbi [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Thanks for the brainstorming

  1. Good point, but perhaps the best alternative isn't to let a single mod unilaterally delete a frontpaged post with hundreds or thousands of net upvotes, but to force them to just live with it. This does seem harsh and probably isn't best, though.

  2. You could, but see #4. Anyone with a history of doing that would eventually be un-defaulted

  3. Could volunteers be trusted to do this instead of admins? Or the community?

  4. Yeah, maybe part of the agreement of becoming a default is that those mods have to give up one of their subs.

  5. I'm not so sure. On Reddit /r/science would have a high deletion ratio, but it'd be clear it's for curation. TIL would have a high ratio, and it'd be clear it's because they delete interesting shit as powerusers.

  6. The anonymization wouldn't have to be perfect, just give a small amount of plausible deniability so that witch hunts are harder to start. The alternative seems to be permitting mods to privately communicate with news agencies and political groups, possibly even taking bribes (mods conspiring to delete all comments about Zoe Quinn anyone?)


[–] HeavyHebrew 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

People can often tell who's who by their writing style. I'm not sure anonymizing would be effective.

Only sleuths, spies and autists would pay attention to that kind of detail. I am still wrapping my head around anonymous posting on an aggregator.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 



[–] theresamouseinmyhous 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think this this a very valid point and raises an interesting questions of "what's the best way to decentralize the user base?"


[–] DrPepper 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As long as there's some openness to the deletions occurring, I wouldn't mind seeing other types of experimentation as you suggest to prevent unnecessary silencing.