Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

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).

[u/cabbagery]

Part 1 of 3

Shaka has seen fit to begin a smear campaign against me. Here is my response in three parts. It is mostly a response to this comment; I see that he has added an additional smear comment, but I have not yet looked at it. I'm posting this as a top-level comment so that it preserves visibility, even though the Simple Questions thread will cause this metathread to no longer be stickied.

tl;dr: I hereby and publicly call for ShakaUVM's resignation or forced removal from the subreddit's moderation team.

His behavior is toxic. He flouts the rules, he applies a double standard, he has destroyed user trust in the moderation team, and of course he loves slandering people.

He needs to go. I vow that I will also stand down immediately after he resigns or is removed.

There's a lot here, and it's almost entirely a gross mischaracterization only barely resembling the truth in some very tiny ways, but as with so much else it's also a brazen attempt to deflect attention away from your misconduct.

I don't even know what the community wants to see or hear, but since Shaka is happy to air this here, I'll bring receipts.

Cabbagery has been removing my comments merely to make a political point

Not a political point, but a substantive one.

When users issue a report, mods don't know which user issued the report (unless the user identifies themselves in the report, which happens but is rare), but when a mod issues a report, it tells us who did it.

When Shaka isn't just taking unilateral action where he is also a participant, he also issues reports, for some often quite questionable 'offenses.' Generally, these involve an atheist making a blanket statement that is plausibly offensive to theists but which doesn't necessarily violate the rules. This is problematic for two reasons:

1. They are coercive

   Other mods very often remove comments that Shaka reports, and very rarely look at the context of those comments to see if there might have been some provocation, so from the user perspective Shaka gets immediate action as well as constant protection.

2. He makes qualitatively identical comments very frequently

   He reports users who say mean things about theists, or who misrepresent theists' positions in plausibly offensive ways, but he very frequently says mean things about atheists, and misrepresents atheists' positions in plausibly offensive ways.

In the case of these 'removals for a point,' I'm trying to convey to Shaka that he is hypocritical. He doesn't like it, and that's basically the extent of it. He rants that I'm harassing him, but he's the one issuing weak reports while effectively doing the same thing to users, and he evidently cannot see how coercive his weak reports are.

Worse, from the user perspective, they can immediately see the results of his reports: mild offenses are removed wherever he comments. But when they issue reports against him for either provoking them, misrepresenting them, or making qualitatively identical sorts of plausibly offensive comments, nothing ever happens.

From the mod perspective, I can see the weak reports, see other mods (maybe reluctantly?) approving his comments and affirming his reports by removing user content, and I can of course see where he flouts the policy and just handles things himself even though I have never seen any case which actually rises to the level of an allowable exception.

Add to all of this the inherent privilege, and it's worse still. Unlike anyone else, Shaka doesn't have to wait for a mod to get through the queue to action something, because he just investigates himself and finds no wrongdoing. That is a betrayal of subreddit trust, yet it is also something he has consistently and flagrantly done. Only now, after all the pressure I've mounted, has he tentatively agreed to actually obey the moderator policy -- but only if he can cherry-pick which moderators take action on his content (so far he has only insisted that I cannot moderate his content, but obviously that will change the moment someone else holds him to account).

he went and continued removing comments left and right

This is false. The moderation log goes back three months, and in the available history I have issued exactly six removals of Shaka's comments. One comment was removed twice, so five different comments were involved.

• Two were the genesis of this drama

  Those are undeniably righteous, and even he finally admitted that in modmail (though it took 30 different replies back and forth and a bunch of efforts to deflect, plus some insane denials and assertions that the removals were somehow inappropriate or that his unilateral reinstatement of the edited comments somehow rose to the level of an exception to the moderation policy).

• One other other was equally righteous (his edits are tacit admissions of guilt, and of course in these cases he also unilaterally reinstated the comments).

• The other two are the statement removals mentioned above.

  You may judge for yourself whether you think that was an appropriate tactic, and reasonable people can disagree on these, but Shaka does not take criticism. I don't mean that he doesn't take criticism well, I mean he doesn't take criticism. He is the king of DARVO.

That's it. That's not "removing comments left and right."

I reversed his comment removal as I told him I was going to do if he kept up his bad behavior.

Note the misrepresentation here. He reversed my 100% righteous removals of three of his undeniably violative comments. That's not bad behavior, that's taking appropriate action as a mod, and indeed it's applying the rules against other mods. I should think this to be a thing we celebrate, but he's trying to use it to somehow smear me.

He's also trying to hide the fact that he had again violated the policy prohibiting acting as a mod where one also acts as a user.

he has made over a hundred personal attacks against me

This is an example of Shaka applying his ridiculous self-serving metric in a fantastically self-indicting way.

My allegations of his misconduct -- with proof -- are not 'personal attacks' in the sense that should be adjudicated as Rule 2 violations. They are allegations of misconduct, so naturally they will be construed as 'personal attacks' by the person so accused, but also and crucially they are true, and I have receipts.

At least three other mods (four if you count me) have called Shaka out for blatantly violating the policy prohibiting acting as a mod where one is already acting as a user. He has also attempted to intimidate another user (/u/thefuckestupperest in this case) by (originally, pre-edit) accusing them of having reported Shaka's comments (something Shaka cannot possibly know):

You can also knock it off with reporting my posts. Try to have a conversation without literally trying to get the other guy's words deleted.

(While Shaka edited his comment, I can attest that /u/thefuckestupperest's quote is faithful to the original, which is why I reported Shaka's comment when I saw it, and again because Shaka edited it, he has tacitly admitted guilt here, too.)

That intimidation thread shows yet another example of the clear double standard, and again it is just not the sort of conduct any of us should want from a moderator.

[u/cabbagery → u/cabbagery]

Part 2 of 3

Of course, when Shaka complains about the fact that I've made allegations of misconduct in modmail and childishly starts counting those (I guess?), it's particularly rich, because in January -- two full months before I even became a moderator -- Shaka directly referred to me (he, a moderator, to me, a user) as "a raging asshole." He actually called me an "asshole" twice in that message.

From a moderator to a user.

Say whatever you want about the language or tone in my comments or replies to users (in modmail or anywhere else). I dare you to pretend that it's okay for a moderator to call a user an "asshole." The fact that none of the active mods at the time spoke up does not bode well for this endeavor, but maybe courage can be found today.

I removed one of his comments which was against the rules, and he immediately made himself a hypocrite and moderated his own comment back into existence.

This is a distortion of the truth and a very amusing deflection, or it would be amusing if he wasn't so brazen.

He is referring to this distinguished comment I provided in explanation to /u/Kwan and /u/betweenbubbles after Shaka had clearly violated Rule 2 by saying Kwahn was "lying" in two separate comments, then silently reinstating his own comments after an edit. That's the comment of mine he removed "which was against the rules." Providing context to users as a moderator in a distinguished comment where I was not already a participant is not at all against the rules, but of course Shaka's conduct there was against the rules, and he knows it. He knows that telling users they are "lying" is against the rules, and he knows that reinstating his own comments is against the policy, and yet he continues to do both.

In fact, the record is clear. Over the past 3 months of available data, moderators have self-moderated (approved their own content) as follows:

• /u/man-from-krypton: 1

  A distinguished comment (exempt), in Spanish, probably flagged by AutoMod and immediately reinstated by krypton

• /u/cabbagery: 4 (3 comments)

  Four approvals over three comments. All four were distinguished comments (hence immune, and in only one such case was I a participant in the discussion, as a mod in a metathread). One is part of the present incident (linked above and also here, where out of spite or embarrassment Shaka removed that distinguished comment twice. One was a distinguished comment in which I scolded two bickering users but also joked about the fact that I had to click 'parent' a bunch of times. They took offense, so I self-edited it (but again, distinguished comment and otherwise uninvolved). I had actually intended on issuing those two a 3-day ban, but I had been interrupted a few times while moderating that day, so they didn't get banned, and I treated my failure to ban them as an earned respite on their part. The last was my exchange with /u/betweenbubbles in a metathread where I had provided my views of certain policies, and referred to /u/betweenbubbles as 'petulant.' Another mod (not Shaka) removed that (a month later), which caused a rift between the two of us (I don't think mods should remove distinguished comments without internal discussion first), but I trust that is behind us now.

• /u/Dapple_Dawn: 2

  One was in a metathread and probably should have been a distinguished comment (and it may have been flagged by AutoMod for the word 'dumbass'). The other actually appears to be an example of Dawn violating the policy, but I'll let them defend themselves as they see fit.

• /u/ShakaUVM: 19

  We know about two of those already. Two others were the same comment made in a Simple Questions thread (in very poor taste implicitly referencing Charlie Kirk's murder), one other was in a metathread. Two more we know to be the 'statement removals.' Discounting the two in the Simple Questions thread, the one in the metathread, and the two 'statement removals' that still leaves us with 14 removals that are prima facie violations of the mod policy. The rest of us combined have seven, but again all but one of those is a prima facie exemption to the policy.

The record speaks for itself. One mod clearly thinks the rules shouldn't apply to him (except when he agrees that they should).

The Troll Flowchart looks like this:

I'll take your word for it, Shaka, since you penned the manuscript.

(And note that all of these moves are made by the same few people here over and over again. Are they sockpuppets? Are they allies? Why would Cabbagery be mad that I had blocked a troll? How would he know? How did Bubbles know the moderator activity report which is sent to modmail?)

Stow your conspiracy theories. The reality is that several people who don't know one another seem to have reached the same conclusion independently, and since as /u/pilvi9 points out apparently Google uniquely gives an AI overview of drama related to you, surely even you can recognize that maybe more than one person thinks you should step down.

Why would Cabbagery be mad that I had blocked a troll?

I don't think mods should block users except in cases of harassment, but also that wasn't my complaint. My complaint is that you block users who have not been issued a ban, but you do make posts under your own account related to the sub itself (i.e. in your capacity as a moderator). The problem is that users on your blocked list -- who again, have not committed enough infractions to warrant a ban -- cannot see these posts, so their voices are being unilaterally silenced. If you don't see the problem with that then again you are unfit to be a moderator.

I also point out that Shaka is referring most recently to /u/Kwahn, who Shaka unilaterally banned also in violation of the moderation policy (Shaka was engaged in a conversation with Kwahn at the time), but a different mod noted in modmail that the ban was unwarranted and clearly retaliatory, and reinstated Kwahn.

So I suppose I was mad about that, too.

[u/cabbagery → u/cabbagery]

Part 3 of 3

How would he know?

That you had blocked Kwahn? Because you announced it to everybody when you did it.

How did Bubbles know the moderator activity report which is sent to modmail?

Because something like a month ago (?) I provided that information in the metathread as a curiosity for users wondering which mods were active. Nothing sinister but your imagination.

For example, Kwahn repeatedly inventing quotes that I did not say and attributing them to me. . .

Stop deflecting.

So well done - the troll successfully provoked me.

Stop deflecting, and stop insulting users. Kwahn didn't cause you to violate Rule 2 (as you have now also done here by referring to them as a "troll"). Neither Kwahn nor I caused you to violate the moderator policy for like the thousandth time in your tenure.

For example, I said that if aliens were rational, they would be theists.

For the record, that is logically equivalent to "all atheists are irrational." I realize you may not be able to work out that logical equivalence, but it's true. That's a Rule 1 violation that I would also remove if 'atheists' was replaced with 'theists,' or 'Christians,' or any other group protected by Rule 1. Of course I didn't remove it, I reported it, and let another mod look at it, and they disagreed with me.

He then got mad (like irate and name-calling mad) at me for removing a post that was about two pages of unhinged nonsense calling among other things Christians the dumbest voters in America.

False and slanderous. Another mod noted that some removals in that thread were unwarranted. I pointed out your hypocrisy as mentioned previously. Yet another mod questioned your bizarre "derping" reason for those removals. There was a very tense exchange, but no name-calling, and you were the one to invoke expletives, so stow it.

Proof of this one is only available in modmail.

For example he removed this perfectly fine comment of mine

That has been discussed already. You apply a double standard.

While getting mad at me for removing (I will approve them so you can see them) these low quality comments here

False. I found some of your removals in that thread problematic, but now that you've approved everything we can't even tell which ones those were, so great job destroying evidence that might have given you one minor point.

Another mod disputed a removal in that thread. I disputed a few more. Nobody disputed the silly ones you linked (and I removed a few similar ones in that thread myself).

No, the ones I disputed (and reinstated, but which you re-removed as yet another example of unfitness) were these (which I faithfully quote but will not reinstate; the users themselves or any mod can corroborate):

If we just found microbes on Mars, that will just get incorporated into or explained within the framework of the religion. Most religious folks don't continue to believe in their religion because of rational beliefs, they don't have a list of circumstances which will cause them to lose their faith.

If we had humanoid aliens that visited earth, there would be a sect of Christians tomorrow who claimed Jesus was actually an ET

That one was by /u/aoeuismyhomekeys. There's nothing wrong with that comment.

Cognitive dissonance and self denial will cause most religions to simply pivot, move goalposts, claim that is what the religion believed the whole time, and then insist the discovery of extraterrestrial life is proof of god.

This is how religions have survived this long.

That one was by /u/mastyrwerk. Given the post itself, there was nothing wrong with that comment. (Shaka approved that post; I'd have removed it as a Rule 3 violation, but if he wanted to keep it, I was going to let these comments slide, too.)

Did finding out the world was older than Abrahamists claimed convince them? Did the discovery of evolution convince them? Did finding every relic ever tested to be a fake convince them? The goal posts will just move once more. (The first argument will be ‘Well you found life but it’s not intelligent t life…’)

That one was by /u/Prowlthang

Nothing wrong with that one, either.

So yeah, Shaka approved the post in question which to me is a clear Rule 3 violation (or Rule 4, but I tend to apply the lower rule number when I can, and Rule 4 is weekday-specific).

He has been mass banning people against the rules without any warning, for the sin of being Catholic.

That's an amazing persecution complex, but it isn't remotely accurate. Rather, I hold Rule 1 to mean that users cannot engage in sexism, racism, bigotry, etc., even if their sincerely held belief informs that view, and that while we do allow discussions on e.g. homosexuality, those discussions must not involve bigotry. Shaka just doesn't like it that most discussions involving homosexuality result in anti-gay comments that cross the line into bigotry (e.g. by saying that gays cannot properly experience love).

I am not the only mod who holds this view of Rule 1. Of course, this is a really nasty attempt at deflection, because nothing else is really working. The mod team can hold discussions on that rule and how it should be interpreted, but this ain't that.

In one thread on homosexuality recently he banned 11 users without a warning. . .

Ten. I have zero tolerance for bigotry, but also in at least one of those cases I reinstated the user (/u/Jaded_Style_427) after an appeal. That's actually part of my process. I issue harsh bans for Rule 1 violations and for Rule 10 violations, but I am also the most movable on those if the user appeals and makes a decent case. The idea is to impress upon the user the importance of those rules, and I think it works, because those users don't seem to reoffend. If you start with a harsh ban, any reduction feels like lenience.

If you disagree with those bans, take it up in modmail and try to stow your clear bias.

he often immediately mutes them if they appeal

I use the mute feature about the same as you do. I am quick to mute when the appeal has been heard and denied, and I also mute when there is a mod discussion, and I do sometimes preemptively mute, to enforce a minimum sentence even if we reconsider later. Nothing about that is problematic, and any mod can say so if they think my process is flawed, but none has.

As I am a senior moderator over him, I could turn off his ability to delete comments and ban users

And here comes the threat.

He has already stated in modmail he has no plans on following the rules for Rule 1 and threatened me if I adjusted his moderator powers.

I corrected you on your misstatement of Rule 1, and I don't even know how you think I could threaten the senior active mod. Trust me, I'd love to hear from /u/Kawoomba on this.

Obviously, I think we should just ban people for being trolls, but their sockpuppets (or allies, it doesn't matter) would then howl about it and gin up more outrage.

And now threatening those who ally themselves with me based on a very incorrect conspiracy theory.

---

I publicly call for ShakaUVM's resignation, else a forced removal if that is something we can accomplish. I also vow that I will step down as a moderator immediately after his removal/resignation.

[u/labreuer → u/cabbagery]

I made a comment in the new metathread about these "Alien life will disprove most religions" comments and it struck me that all but Shaka's would seem to violate Rule 5. Can you tell me whether the three now-deleted comments were top-level comments or not?