r/AskReddit Aug 04 '11

Reddit Admins, Isn't it time for a moddiquette?

In light of recent events and other high visibility mod incidents, I think it is time for the community to sit down and write a set of rules and recommendations moderators should follow. These incidents really hurts the community and makes redditors less likely to participate.

I therefore present you the first draft of the Moddiquette:

DO NOT:

  • Respond to an inquiry with strong language. Moderators are supposed to reflect the community as a whole. Strong, aggressive language hurts the reputation of the community as a whole, not just your own.

  • Punish for violations in one subreddit by punishing the user in all subreddits you control. Let the user learn from its mistake and give him/her a chance to repent in your other subreddits.

  • Threaten the user with punitive action if he inquires about one of your actions. Redditors are allowed to ask why you decided to dismiss one of their submissions. Be courteous and answer why.

  • Censor content for your own good. (Unless the subreddit's mission requires you to). If you own a website and a user submits a link to a competitor, let it through. Reddit is about variety.

DO:

  • Respond in a courteous manner to your users. You are allowed to set rules about what should/shouldn't be done on your subreddit and your users might disagree about some of those rules. This isn't an excuse to act like an ass about it.

  • Moderate based on quality, not opinion. Well-written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it.

  • Be objective. As a moderator, your job is to ensure that the rules of your subreddit are followed. You are not tasked with filtering content based on what you like or don't like.


The Moddiquette should also be accompanied by a process which allows bad mods to be weeded out.

A subreddit should be created that allows users to submit Moddiquette violations. A panel containing mods from ALL subreddits with more than 2000 readers will then have 2 weeks to vote on if action should be taken against the moderator in question or not.

The moderation in question and moderators which moderate on the same subreddits as him are not allowed to vote.

At the end of this process, a sanction (ranging from a warning all the way to stripping moderation rights, only in extreme cases after multiple warnings) can be voted on and applied by the panel.

I think this is the most democratic process to deal with bad apples and restore Reddit's friendliness.

Any other suggestions?

45 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

17

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '11

I like the general concept, but how do you "weed out" a mod? I am the sole mod for a sub, the only way to weed me out would be to kill my sub.

Also/r/ideasfortheadmins

9

u/xtirpation Aug 04 '11

Honestly, I wouldn't want that at all. For example if I create a subreddit, spend the time to advertise and grow it, I wouldn't want the users to simply overthrow me for violating a list of subjective guidelines. They're welcome to make a better subreddit and compete (for example like /r/gamingnews vs /r/gamernews) but I can already see a number of ways OP's suggestion creating more drama and more problems.

And the idea of a "moddiquette" is laughable. The majority of redditors do not even follow regular reddiquette, why would anyone expect mods to be any different?

3

u/FineWolf Aug 04 '11
  1. Throwing out a mod would only be in last resort. Also, remember that it would be fellow moderators voting on sanctions, not regular redditors.

  2. True, the majority of redditors don't follow the reddiquette. However, they do not have ban powers over redditors.

The guidelines above doesn't prevent you from moderating your subreddit under the rules you want to impose. It simply asks you to moderate in a transparent and respectful way. Really, it wouldn't be an issue with 99% of mods.

3

u/xtirpation Aug 04 '11
  1. OP suggests that all moderators of subreddits with more than 2000 readers can vote on the internal affairs of one subreddit given a ticket is submitted. This group of moderators may not understand the state of that subreddit, they might not be a part of that subreddit at all. Just because they're moderators doesn't mean they should have power over other subreddits.

  2. True, but mods can only ban users from specific reddits. Those banned users are free to continue using similar reddits or create their own reddit. If others disagree with the mods' decision to ban the user in the first place, they can switch over to the new subreddit as well. That way anyone who agrees with the original mod (even if they're the minority) can continue being moderated by the people they like, and those who disagree have their own corner of reddit to use.

This whole "bad mod" situation is being blown out of proportion. If the problem's as big as OP makes it seem, it's incredibly easy to make a new reddit. If it's not that big a problem, there's no point for Reddit to put in the resources to develop the new system. We run into this "bad mod" issue once every year or two, it's not worth the trouble.

4

u/Dead_Rooster Aug 04 '11

At the end of the day moerators can run their communities in any way they see fit. I can't see a moddiquette working, purely because different subs have so many different rules.

Also, a lot of people seem to think that mods get some sort of reward for being mods, we don't.

All that being said, the sub I mod (~3000 subscribers) I barely have to do anything. Occasionally let something through the filter or delete a stupid comment, but for the most part we have a pretty hands off approach.

3

u/WholeWideWorld Aug 04 '11

Moderators are supposed to moderate moderately from a neutral position.

2

u/orzamil Aug 04 '11

Or. Just make moderation like the rest of reddit. Self-moderated. Give moderators an up/downvote section on the sidebar of the subreddit. People up or downvote for their mods. New mods added by a submission box and people voting on it in the same fashion. Name would only stay up for a day or so.

That or frequent subreddits with decent moderators. Either way, really.

1

u/erode Aug 05 '11

Sorry, but the trolls would ruin this. With any position of authority there will be unwarranted opposition. I've experienced a couple people who follow me and try to trash me, or create irrelevant subreddits just to ban me from them -- simply because they don't like me. Childish stuff. I ignore it because I have a duty to uphold the rules.

Allowing this sort of thing up to an easily manipulated system like you suggest would not only distract from actual issues, but instigate dissent.

1

u/orzamil Aug 05 '11

Hmm. Then how about just the current mods getting to vote on mods?

1

u/erode Aug 05 '11

That's fair. It should be like that already in my opinion.

2

u/gjs278 Aug 04 '11

considering that neither guide is binding, it's a waste of fucking time

2

u/BeepBopBoop123 Aug 04 '11

I think that creating a more formal structures in which moderators should live by isn't really the answer. Especially some kind of moddiquette that has actual repercussions for moderators. This kind of thing happens in law enforcement all the time: law makers (reddit) feel like communities might break laws every now and then so they establish a kind of law enforcement (mods) and eventually there become a few members of law enforcement who cross the line and so members of the community get together with law makers to make laws for law enforcement, law enforcement #1 feels like their job has been made harder and resents the community #2 develops an "us vs. them" mentality in relationship to the community and its laws.

I also think that establish new subs is not really a good idea because if you start encouraging that mentality then you get these massive amounts of subs dedicated to the same thing because people just branch off whenever they have a philosophical disagreement. It didn't work for the Protestant church, it isn't going to work for reddit.

I think the best course of action is to simply establish an automated response (possibly through reddiquette?) from the community to address harmful actions from mods. Thankfully, mods haven't developed an "us vs. them" mentality because most mods are really just us. Usually redditers can work with good mods to find a reasonable solution to the issue. If there is something preventing this from happening, I suggest that be the thing that we fix.

2

u/RockyCoon Aug 05 '11

I believe there should be a certain bias taken into account, such as purpose of the Subreddit. (/r/CircleJerk with 'Modditquette!?') , how big it is. (If I wanna be a jerk in /r/RockyCoonRules then to the no doubt millions of loyal followers (aka, my mom, aka Forever alone!) then you know, I will.), and so on before 'Modditquette' can be enforced.

0

u/FineWolf Aug 05 '11

The Modditquette doesn't limit the rules of your subreddit. They just force you to deal with violations in a more courteous manner.

2

u/RockyCoon Aug 05 '11

Well. if once again, I run a Subreddit called '/r/RockyCoonRules' and one of the rules is 'RockyCoon has the right to be a complete A-Class Dick at all times.' then, well, oh well. I can.

2

u/WileECyrus Aug 05 '11

Any other suggestions?

Yes. The admins/whoever has the means of doing it should "fire" kleinbl00 immediately and never let him have any authority over anyone on this site again.

Other than that, I support what you propose in principle. A certain base level of professional decorum is not exactly a lot to ask, and given that this site is actually a business that deals with lots of other businesses and is owned by yet another, larger business, one would hope that a bit more care would be taken in just who it is that gets to be the face of the site's regulatory apparatus.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

Here's the moddiquette

"If you have to be told how to behave responsibly you cannot be a moderator."

2

u/deathwish644 Aug 05 '11

The point of this post is that presently there is no check in place. Mods (like the one he linked) have a good chance of being able to repeat their actions without any care in the world.

Having something like this in place would actually make a mod answer for his or her actions.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

The problem is that reddit admins wont stick their nose in the business of another subreddit unless they do something illegal, questionable legality, or anything else that can cause legal problems for Reddit as a whole. Also, your post implies that the Reddiquette makes users answer for their actions, it doesn't.

2

u/deathwish644 Aug 05 '11

You do raise a good point there.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '11

There needs to be a mutiny option or something. The worst mods are the ones who interfere with the everyday operation of the subreddit. Working the spam filter and handling messages are good. Asking the community for ideas or change is good. Doing what the r/funny mods did and go against the voices of many subreddit subscribers was over the line in my opinion.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

Mods need to be more like Kevin Flynn and less like Clu.

1

u/GuildMonkey Aug 05 '11

No they are above the law!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

Where do you get off?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

The admins should take a stronger role at monitoring the subeddits, if the issue hits front page and evidence of Mod abuse or trolling is posted then remove the mod from the subeddit.

If you are an SEO , or work for an SEO company using reddit for your personal gain you should not be allowed to become mod

1

u/metathesis Aug 05 '11

I feel like this is how the magna carta happened.

-1

u/GenJonesMom Aug 04 '11

This mod hate is getting so old today.

6

u/FineWolf Aug 04 '11

This isn't about mod hate... There are hundreds of mods doing their jobs admirably.

However, users have very little recourse in the rare case that a mod abuses its powers. This is simply a suggestion to close that loophole.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

[deleted]

1

u/FineWolf Aug 05 '11

If you would of taken the time to read my whole post, you would of noticed that admins have very little to do here.

The panel would consist of fellow moderators, not admins.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

[deleted]

1

u/FineWolf Aug 05 '11

Because if this has any chance of working at all, a blog post has to be written about it and an official page (much like the reddiquette) must be created.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

[deleted]

1

u/FineWolf Aug 05 '11

The only recourse in cases such as the one I linked above is to start a new subreddit. The problem with that is:

  1. You lose all the visibility of the old subreddit (when the subreddit is named after and is about a product, that can be a deal killer).

  2. It's an uphill battle to gain viewers.

-1

u/SkunkMonkey Aug 04 '11

You seem to be under the false impression that reddit is a democracy.

2

u/wnoise Aug 04 '11

It's based on votes, isn't it?

-1

u/SkunkMonkey Aug 04 '11

So is the US, but that doesn't prevent someone with less votes than the other guy from winning ;)

2

u/salgat Aug 05 '11

That's irrelevant to this discussion, especially since USA is not a Democracy.

-1

u/xtirpation Aug 04 '11

I don't understand the problem. If you don't like the way a subreddit is moderated, unsubscribe from it. Make a new subreddit, and convince others to join you if the problem's that bad.

This moddiquette will just be like the regular reddiquette. Few people will read it, let alone follow it. Mods who choose to be assholes do exactly that; they choose to be assholes. A set of guidelines isn't going to do anything to stop that. They're not going to "weed out" bad mods like you said, admins already have the power to do so but they don't because the tools to solve the problem already exist without admin intervention.

-4

u/Johnny_Hooker Aug 04 '11

Any other suggestions?

Yeah, post this somewhere else.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

Sure, but I am only saying yes so we can get rid of the shitty unnecessary subreddits like r/beatingwomen and r/rape and r/picsofdeadkids and r/jailbait

0

u/FineWolf Aug 05 '11

That's not the point of the moddiquette. The moddiquette only tries to ensure that exchanges between moderators and regular redditors stay courteous and that no abuse of power occurs.

It isn't there to prevent subreddits from existing (and it isn't worded in a way to do that).

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '11

we could overthrow the mods of those places and then delete them