4 ms·

From a comment in that thread: > The “top” moderator of r|AdviceAnimals — who had taken fewer than a half dozen moderator actions over the past year — chose to

by irdc 3y ago

From a comment in that thread: > The “top” moderator of r|AdviceAnimals — who had taken fewer than a half dozen moderator actions over the past year — chose to exercise power to shut down r|AdviceAnimals, without the consent of (and against the wishes of) the active moderator team of r|AdviceAnimals. > The active moderator team of r|AdviceAnimals filed a protest with Reddit Admins, who altered that moderator’s privileges / permissions to prevent the account from changing the configuration of the subreddit or closing it, and then the active mod team of r|AdviceAnimals re-opened it. Please don’t misrepresent this.

derbOac 3y ago
I almost think this post should be upvoted because of that comment alone, and the possibilities it points to. The interesting thing about it to me is this opens a huge swath of "plausible deniability" actions on the part of Reddit administration. For example: 1. Can the admins invoke this rule to say that mods who force a blackout are "not active" and therefore can be replaced? 2. Is it conceivable that admins will spin situations to smear mods doing a blackout? How would we know, if they can delete evidence of what was transpiring beforehand, and much of it would be behind the scenes anyway? To be clear, I am absolutely sure there is a lot of inter-moderator conflict going on right now and have no doubt there are cases of mods blacking out subs against the wishes of other mods. This could certainly be one of those cases (if forced to guess, in fact, my guess it probably is). But at the same time, this sort of comment makes my antennae go up because it points to ways in which the narrative can really be twisted to suit the Reddit admins.
mvdtnz 3y ago
This seems completely reasonable on Reddit's part. There has been an ongoing problem with two categories of moderators on Reddit that are way overdue for a shake-up, * Absentee moderators, especially when they are at the top of the moderator hierarchy * Power moderators who control moderator powers for dozens and sometimes hundreds of popular subreddits

by irdc 3y ago

derbOac 3y ago

I almost think this post should be upvoted because of that comment alone, and the possibilities it points to. The interesting thing about it to me is this opens a huge swath of "plausible deniability" actions on the part of Reddit administration. For example: 1. Can the admins invoke this rule to say that mods who force a blackout are "not active" and therefore can be replaced? 2. Is it conceivable that admins will spin situations to smear mods doing a blackout? How would we know, if they can delete evidence of what was transpiring beforehand, and much of it would be behind the scenes anyway? To be clear, I am absolutely sure there is a lot of inter-moderator conflict going on right now and have no doubt there are cases of mods blacking out subs against the wishes of other mods. This could certainly be one of those cases (if forced to guess, in fact, my guess it probably is). But at the same time, this sort of comment makes my antennae go up because it points to ways in which the narrative can really be twisted to suit the Reddit admins.

mvdtnz 3y ago

This seems completely reasonable on Reddit's part. There has been an ongoing problem with two categories of moderators on Reddit that are way overdue for a shake-up, * Absentee moderators, especially when they are at the top of the moderator hierarchy * Power moderators who control moderator powers for dozens and sometimes hundreds of popular subreddits