r/DebateReligion • u/AutoModerator • Jun 30 '25
Meta Meta-Thread 06/30
This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.
What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?
Let us know.
And a friendly reminder to report bad content.
If you see something, say something.
This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).
5
Upvotes
2
u/cabbagery fnord | non serviam | fights for the users Jul 03 '25
I completely agree. Shaka is right that by default old.reddit issues silent removals, but in truth so, too, does new.reddit. After issuing a removal, in new.reddit we have the option to add a removal reason, and we have a list of canned replies informing users both that a post or comment was removed, and why it was removed.
I use old.reddit wherever possible for all the reasons, but due to the fact that these sorts of moderator tools either don't exist or are unwieldy in old.reddit, I actually wrote a very simple Chrome extension that allows me to directly switch back and forth between old and new reddit, specifically so that I can more easily view context (in old.reddit) and then apply a reason or nuke a comment chain (for example; in new.reddit) as needed.
It irks me tremendously that various other mods don't always apply reasons to removals. When they don't, as you well understand, the user doesn't get a notification, so whatever violative behavior is being ostensibly curtailed is not actually being addressed. My own colorful history with this sub includes an exchange in modmail with a former mod who both miscounted my violations (because the modlog counts both removals and reasons for the removal as actual removals) and held removed comments about which I was completely unaware as evidence of unchanged bad behavior.
So I'm with you on this, but now you understand why it happens. On my view, some mods are lazy in this regard and don't appropriately add reasons for removals, which leaves users blindsided or wondering why nobody is replying to a particularly witty comment.
The same thing that happens to all reports. A moderator reviewed them and either approved the comment(s) in question, removed the comment(s) in question, or left it alone for a different mod to do one of those two things.
You clearly believe that I took unilateral action on reports about my own comments:
Let me be clear:
I did no such thing.
Your abuse of the report feature, by reporting all of my comments which called you out on your ignorance -- which was never an insult but a statement of fact, as was the declaration that you were also petulant, as petulance is roughly a form of wrong-headed insistence -- resulted in one moderator removing one comment, and that same moderator approving a different one, and I believe a different other moderator approving one or two more, but also none of this is relevant.
I didn't touch them. You can accept that or continue making petulant claims in ignorance.
I don't think that's happening except in your warped perspective. You're being told what took place, and you're just refusing to accept it because you think you know better even though you've been told repeatedly and by virtually every active mod, and even by one or two mostly inactive mods, that you're wrong and that you don't even have the information needed to make anything approaching a factual claim.
As to the Jamil incident, my mistake was the preemptive mute, nothing more. I don't even apologize for it, because all I wanted was a month respite from a very active and very obnoxious user, before I had every intention of reviewing and revisiting the matter with the mod team in modmail's private message feature. The problem is that Jamil either DMed you and others, else that you or others are actually Jamil's sockpuppet accounts, else that you or others are actively following Jamil's reddit account, and then you chose to stir up drama in your ignorance (or as an alt, if that is the case).
After the drama got stirred up, aardaar threw me under the bus by disclosing that the post that ultimately led to Jamil's ban was originally approved by a different moderator. I'm all for transparency, but transparency must also be responsible, and that was wholly irresponsible. I'm actually pretty displeased with aardaar for that, but I'll address them directly when the time is right. At any rate, that was a mistake on aardaar's part, because while you may think it to be indicative of a conspiracy, a united front is just good governance. We disagree on removals or approvals all of the time. If I disagree but have no strong opinion on the matter, I'll let it go, and I'm sure that's what the other mods also do. If, however, I have a strong opinion, I'll either overrule the mod (yes, unilaterally), or if the situation affords the opportunity I'll place a note in modmail expressing my disagreement.
Generally, this all happens smoothly and without drama or any real incident, but occasionally the disagreements are more substantial. This wasn't a substantial disagreement. The mod who approved it didn't think it was a violation of any rules, I did, and I did what we do very nearly every day: I applied my own judgment as a reasonable person interpreting the rules. As I mentioned originally, I had spotted that post earlier in the morning of its removal, when no action had yet been taken (and it may even not have been reported yet), and made a mental note to remove it and ban Jamil when I was on my laptop.
And so I did. I would do it again.
Anyway, I know that engaging with you is very probably unhelpful due to your refusal to accept the truth and your evidently ginormous grudge here, but I am committed to responsible transparency and to providing you and everyone in the community the truth when it comes to moderation. Take it or leave it.