[Meta] /v/Conspiracy Community Discussion: Moderation (Conspiracy)

submitted ago by Mumberthrax

Hey folks, Mumberthrax here again with another meta-post about our subverse seeking input from you all. This one is about moderation and moderators.

As some of you may know from my introduction post a bit ago, I'm the new level 1 moderator on /v/conspiracy, thus I have the ability to add or remove moderators here. It is a responsibility I do not take lightly. There has been some discussion throughout the life of this subverse about moderation, some happy and some not so happy with the current arrangement. I'd like to offer this post as an invitation to sit down and get everything out on the table and see what people think is an appropriate way of handling things.

Moderators on voat have a few technical abilities granted by the site. They can:

  • remove posts and comments
  • change the appearance of the subverse through CSS and editing the sidebar
  • feature posts by sticky-ing them at the top of the subverse
  • distinguish their comments to show that they are moderators and are speaking in an official capacity
  • ban/unban accounts from posting/commenting
  • create and apply text flair on submissions
  • set the sub as private, NSFW, anonymous, or excluded from /v/all
  • require a certain amount of CCP in the sub for a user to be able to downvote

These tools can be used for good or ill, either overtly or subtly.

So, some topics I'd like to hear from you all on:

  1. Responsibilities of moderators:
    What should moderators of /v/conspiracy be responsible for? What is appropriate conduct? What is inappropriate conduct?

  2. Moderator Activity Levels:
    How active should moderators be? Should mods who are inactive for a given period of time be spoken to and/or asked to step down, or be removed? What constitutes activity/inactivity?

  3. Transparency and Accountability:
    What should be public? What should be mods-eyes-only? How might mods be held accountable for misconduct?

  4. How moderators are added:
    How should mods be chosen? Popularity contests? CCP scores? Random selection? Selection by existing moderators? Something else entirely?
    Additionally, how long should people be moderators for?

  5. Should any changes be made to the mod team right now?:
    Should any moderators be added? Should any be removed? If any should be removed, why?

I've got opinions and thoughts on each of these, but it would not be appropriate for me to share them in this post, so I'll likely do so in the comments.

If you have any opinions or thoughts on these, whether you are a regular or a newcomer, a skeptic or a true believer, a moderator or non-moderator, subscriber or here from /v/all, I invite you to join in and let others know what's on your mind. If you don't want to comment here, and would rather make your own post, please feel free to either post to /v/conspiracy or /v/conspiracymeta.

I'll be stickying this post for one week (2015/6/9 to 2015/6/16) to make sure any regulars are able to see and comment on it, and be heard. I'm not yet sure what will happen after that, my plans with regard to this are dependent upon what comes up in this discussion. Regardless, I'll post a followup of some sort of another within a week of this one being unsticky'd.

Edit 2015/6/16: I'll be extending the duration this post remains stickied by two days due to the extended downtime Voat endured over the past week. It will be unstickied on 2015/6/18.

Edit 2015/6/18: Unstickying this post now so it won't be an eyesore any longer. I will post a followup within the next week.

Edit: Followup post: [Meta] v/Conspiracy Community Discussion on Moderation: Followup

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

nokilli ago

So voat.co suffers from exactly the same fatal flaw that killed reddit: anonymous moderators.

For all we know, you're both the gunman in the grassy knoll and the guy who remote-piloted the planes into the world trade center. Oh, and you're probably Jewish to boot.

It's unacceptible.

Mumberthrax ago

Absolutely. moderators could be anyone. I could easily be working for CIA, mossad, the bilderbergers or CFR, or I could be a JREF or CSICOP fellow, etc. - same for anyone else, user or mod. Without an invasive background check there is little that can be done to know if someone is who they say they are.

This is why transparency and an accountability process is so important, and establishing the operational bounds in which moderators can act and the line which they cannot cross - so that even if you have the devil himself hiding behind the veil of anonymity, so long as his actions are in accord with the policy as established by the community, his hands are bound only to serve the common welfare.

I would be interested in hearing what alternative methods you might suggest to alleviate the problem of anonymity in moderation.

I'm going to put on my formal moderation cap now.

Oh, and you're probably Jewish to boot

/v/conspiracy currently has a rule which states:

Rule 2: No overt attacks on people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or creed

I'd like to take this moment to let you know that your comment, whether satirical or not, is basically an attack on Jewish people, and is not desired here. I recognize that the conspiracy theories about all Jews being untrustworthy or out for world domination are not uncommon, and that they are fueled by a fear or paranoia that is difficult to alleviate or remedy. I don't fault you if you sincerely believe this is a threat. I want you to know that it's completely permitted to express concerns about such possibilities here on this subverse, to discuss those sorts of conspiracy theories - and in fact that is just what this subverse is for: discussing conspiracy theories - just so long as there is no bigotry involved. I tell you this as moderator representing this community, that we don't like racism here. Please remember this when next you are considering making similar comments on /v/conspiracy.

I've glanced briefly at your posting history and see that you are very outspoken about Jews. I'm sorry i did not catch your previous comments on our subverse which violated this rule, so I will treat these collectively as one transgression rather than individual instances of rule violations. I will make a note in response to each comment of yours that I've seen directing to this warning.

Edit:

nokilli ago

I want you to know that it's completely permitted to express concerns about such possibilities here on this subverse, to discuss those sorts of conspiracy theories - and in fact that is just what this subverse is for: discussing conspiracy theories - just so long as there is no bigotry involved.

Good. Please be aware that when I use the term "jew", I am referring to that aggregate within the larger population that is engaged in conspiracy, and that no bigotry is implied by its use, e.g., I do not believe that because a person is Jewish he or she is necessarily part of this bigotry.

Thanks!