4 ms·
Your alternative that time is spent explaining in detail every action taken isn't realistic, doesn't scale and doesn't start to consider the fact that it's volu
by pluc 4y ago
Your alternative that time is spent explaining in detail every action taken isn't realistic, doesn't scale and doesn't start to consider the fact that it's volunteer work. Especially when the reasons for 100% of the actions that are taken should be documented and publicly available (and we're not talking about mod abuse here, but actual moderation). But sure, it's a great idea; go ahead and enforce it at scale now. Reddit couldn't, Twitter can't, Facebook sucks at it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mrshadowgoose 4y agoYou've got lots of other alternatives: 1) You don't have to explain moderation decisions if you don't want to. This will of course amplify the volume of complaints. 2) You can step down. This "I'm a noble volunteer and should therefore be immune to criticism" attitude doesn't tend to be popular amongst those being moderated. Nobody is forcing you to do this. You may not be getting paid, but are presumably getting some sort of emotional benefit out of doing this job. 3) You can make references to anti-censorship tools a bannable offence, like some of the shittier subreddits do. Fundamentally, you are getting mad at users making and comparing notes.