Mumberthrax

Ah nice, another one published. https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/2838-development-of-post-rev27-survival/ I can't say that I see how this one was a struggle to evaluate for whether it contained any sensitive information that needed to be censored, but I am glad it was finally published. Thanks, Mrloud. I've updated my list of requested posts with #4 now crossed off: edit: formatting

I have corrected my previous comment :D

Another two weeks. Bumping again. Hoping to hear an update on the process of reviewing the few items on my list above. Edit:

i believe this is the video it used to play:

oh noes, it's mumberthrax with his bias. don't accept his suggestion he obviously has an agenda.

http://nerd.nu/applyformod/ Current text on the page says: "Submitting a name will send it to the admins, and give you a little something for taking the time :D" Previously submitting a name would direct the submitter to a humorous video. The site that was used for this no longer functions, and that redirection was altered so that now submitting a name directs the submitter to a page thanking them: http://nerd.nu/applyformod/thanks.php There is no "little something" offered anymore. I suggest that either the text be updated, or some other cute/amusing video/image be visible on the "thanks" page.

This is pretty much what was going to be done on S. The head admins wanted S to stay as it had been though.

I'm not really sure where the personal attacks are coming from here. I'd hate for this post to become dramatized, but I kind of feel i have to defend myself against accusations like this. Would you be willing to illustrate how my proposing this is indicative of a vendetta against the head admins? It is true that I have some resentment for actions the heads have taken against me, and I do feel that they made mistakes. Does this mean that if anyone feels slighted then anything they support or propose must forevermore be viewed as insincere and/or malicious? Or have I done something specific to suggest that in this case I am acting insincerely? Now regarding your first set of questions, it might be best to ask the people who voted in the aforementioned poll what they would hope to achieve. I can't speak for them, but for myself I think it would be basically all of the items i listed in the top part of my original post here. Increased trust between the community and staff, a safeguard against unlikely misconduct by subreddit mods, a deterrent to unwarranted witch hunts, and to lead other subreddit communities by example - such as /r/politics or /r/videos, etc. which would benefit tremendously more as they are communities focused entirely on their subreddit rather than on servers outside of reddit like nerd and as they have had many more issues with allegations of censorship and witch hunts against their mods. I don't think that /r/mcpublic needs this. I think it could be a good thing. I think that the people voting in that poll all wanted it except for trooprm and cmdrtebok (who did not actually read the post explaining what it was, based on his comments). I have been helping people to set this up all over reddit, as you can see from the list of participating subs on https://modlog.github.io - each of those I have been personally involved in the process of their adoption of this public moderation log setup. I have spent more time here at nerd discussing it because I am actually familiar with and, at least I thought, a member of this community. But if my opinions no longer matter because they will always be viewed as having ulterior motives, then perhaps it is best if I left. You crock were the one who convinced me to return to S after I saw how much you wanted Egreth back again. I'm sad that things have changed now.

This takes no techadmin time to setup. All the work is already done. Any moderator on /r/mcpublic can do it with a single invite to the reddit account named "publicmodlogs". The initial argument does not show that no one cares about them. it shows that trooprm and mrloud do not care for them, but they did not comment at all in the original discussion where the bulk of those polled were active and supportive of the proposal. The log entails any actions a moderator takes on /r/mcpublic (except modmail), such as removing posts, approving posts, adding flair, distinguishing posts and comments, banning users, adding moderators, etc. Recently a pretty large subreddit, /r/conspiracy, voted to adopt this public log setup. To see an example of that the log looks like in action, you can view /r/conspiracy's here: https://modlog.github.io/#/r/conspiracy or here: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/about/log/.rss?feed=c7b83b457469643f1912d5fee30e18dba808f351&user=publicmodlogs You cannot see removed comments in the log, however you can see who posted a comment which was removed - and thus you could view it on that user's personal commenting history page if you search around enough. As far as I am aware, the contents of removed self-posts is censored when a mod removes it, though the title/headline remains. Submissions which are "removed" by moderators are not ever actually removed from reddit, merely the front page of the subreddit they were posted to. This is one reason why subreddits like /r/undelete and /r/modlog are able to function at all. I apologize if I didn't make it clear what the log included in either this post or the one in which the community voted for public moderation logs. I thought i did a reasonably good job by linking to a live log from /r/morrowind in that original post, but i can understand how one might not be able to tell from that what all the log would entail. It's possible that the community was voting on things which they understood not.

Please forgive me but let me see if I understand correctly: the community supported an act, and a subset of the admins opposed it, so it will not be implemented. Is this accurate? Did a majority of the head admins present at the meeting oppose it? Did a majority of the head admins on staff oppose it?

Since the rule has been revised to a form I find acceptable, from: ( http://www.redditpublic.com/index.php?title=Rules&oldid=24632#Universal ) to: ( http://www.redditpublic.com/index.php?title=Rules&oldid=24652#ALL_SERVICES ) then it would seem this post no longer has any need to remain open, and should likely be archived. If a moderator would be kind enough to lock it and possibly move it to the archives, I'd be appreciative.

Has been over two weeks since my last bump. Just curious if there is any work being done to get the remaining posts/discussions in my list published.

That's kind of the whole point. It's what the community has voted on - a public log of mod actions including post removals. It's what schererererer endorsed. You do not even want to give it an experimental run to see if it poses no problems at all? Were all of the admins present at this meeting? Was it a unanimous decision? Did all of those voting read the post and the poll data? What, specifically, is wrong with posts being linked in the public log (since thats basically the definition of the public log)? Would you be willing to give us a hypothetical example in which this would be a problem, the costs of which outweigh the benefits? Or perhaps a copy of the recording of the admin meeting in which this was discussed? Not the whole meeting, just the part where this suggestion was reviewed.

In much the same way that i believe it should be permitted to talk about gender identity and attraction, discussions about religion and politics should not be censored unless it is contributing to uncontrollable flame wars. For as long as I was a moderator and before, S never had a rule banning discussions of religion or politics - only PvE did. We never really had issues with it. I think I banned a few people for spamming pejoratives one time, and kicked someone for making a racist joke about jewish people despite claiming to be jewish himself. That's it. I've observed the chilling effect on global chat on P when a mod tells folks to stop talking about politics. Folks feel like they're walking on eggshells. Common sense is needed. Moderation means not too much, not too little, but a moderate management of things.

I have not removed myself as a moderator of the subreddit, and I am aware of the kind of content in the moderation logs. It is 99.99% boring and inane as you said previously "If whoever is voting in this expects juicy content and mass amounts of removed content, you have another thing coming. Enjoy the endless 'editing flairs' and 'distinguishing posts' logs." When items are removed, it is often because it violates a specific rule. Non-moderators are aware that people occasionally try to advertise a server on mcpublic, and are aware that those posts are against the rules and are removed. If you're looking at a moderation log, it stands to reason you're going to see mods acting on rule-violating activities. It's like rooting through a garbage can - you shouldn't be surprised to see a few flyers for joe's minecraft server or a couple of rotten tomatoes.

I'm not trying to hurt anyone. You are probably right that my donation would benefit the community. It doesn't change the fact that I feel injustice has happened, or that my donation could be misconstrued as support for the actions and policies of the current head admins. On the whole they do an ok job, but i guess it's just a personal resentment for what happened. I don't intend to discourage others from donating. It probably was not appropriate for me to mention my issues.

I donated about $20 a long while back. given how I was treated by the head admins I don't think I could justify donating more now. That said, I get junk mail frequently from amnesty international begging me to give them money after I donated one time - I'm fairly certain they have spent more money advertising to me in this way than I sent them in the first place. it does not make me feel positively about the organization.

Trooprm32, would you be willing to share a hypothetical example of content that you would oppose being in a public moderation log? Something which would be harmful if the community knew it existed or had been removed?

Invite the /u/publicmodlogs account to be a moderator of /r/mcpublic with no permissions enabled for it. When this happens, a public log of moderator actions on /r/mcpublic will be visible at the following two urls: https://modlog.github.io/#/r/mcpublic http://www.reddit.com/r/mcpublic/about/log/.rss?feed=c7b83b457469643f1912d5fee30e18dba808f351&user=publicmodlogs No other actions need be taken to maintain this public log by moderators of /r/mcpublic. It is a set-it-and-forget-it kind of deal. Some arguments for: Strengthening Relationships: It will promote increased trust in the relationship between the community and the moderation team. Safeguard against Misconduct: It will deter misconduct, removals of posts and comments which do not violate the rules by keeping those who abuse mod abilities accountable - so long as someone is watching the logs. Deter Unwarranted Witch Hunts: A public register of all mod actions means it is easier than ever to prove that a mod did not remove someone's post or comment without reason, or was doing any number of things that mods on reddit occasionally must defend against without the ability to prove their innocence. Easy and free: It costs nothing to setup and maintain. Non-binding: It is easily reversible - just remove /u/publicmodlogs as a moderator. This means it can be run on an experimental basis, and if problems occur it can be cancelled with no worries. Secure and Trusted: The data is provided by reddit.com directly, so there is no risk of tampering via other cumbersome third-party public modlog workarounds. Lead by example: It will show mcpublic/nerd.nu is forward-thinking and an ally to transparency and honesty, a community that can lead other communities by example through this small action and stay true to its principled roots as the Reddit Public Servers. Community Supported: As of today (9 days since posting) the respondents of this poll favor it, 21 to 2, with 6 undecided. https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3416-transparency-and-accountability-what-does-the-community-think-of-public-subreddit-moderation-logs/ Schererererer Endorsed: One head admin has offered support in the comments of that post, stating that "In general, I think this is a harmless showing of transparency (for us, really more demonstrative than substantive)" and that he "would be fine with implementing it." Some concerns and arguments against: Personal Information: if personal information is in the title of a removed post, it might still be visible in the moderation log. There is a site-wide Reddit rule against posting personal information, so the reddit admins would be empowered to remove the post, its title, and any harmful information. Witch hunts: one of the most noted concerns expressed in this three year old discussion between mods of large subreddits and the reddit admins was that users would go on witch hunts against moderators who remove content. I personally believe that having a public log would be a safeguard against unwarranted witch hunts. I do agree though that an official public log as the reddit admins originally intended to provide would have superior features which would deter witch hunts, such as anonymized moderation in the logs. Regardless, there is as yet no evidence I am aware of to support the notion that these logs promote or empower witch hunts to any amount greater than they occur without public logs. May help spammers: spammers who can study public moderation logs and identify when mods are active, or what kinds of content is caught and removed may be able to use this tool to create more sophisticated spamming techniques. Unneccesary and a waste of time: /u/curtisdelsol in the comments of a post i made on /r/mcpublic about this essentially said nerd isn't important enough to need this. Edit: Trooprm32 points out in a comment below that there is not much of interest in the moderation log. Subreddit Security: There has been some concern in the past that use of this workaround with the published RSS feeds may pose some security risk to the subreddit. As someone who has been intimately involved in the business of setting up and using these links, I can affirm that I am not aware of any security risks, and have not yet heard of any reported in any of the subreddits which have been using this method, including several of mine which have been using it for over a year: https://modlog.github.io/ [Edit:] Removed things should not be public: They are removed for violating the rules. Making them and the fact that they were removed visible defeats the purpose of removing them in the first place. If anyone has any other concerns or arguments in support, please share them and if not already covered by the above I'll include them.

I asked this question to create a frame of reference from which respondents could consider the concept of a public subreddit moderation log. I was also curious about whether those voting "no" on the final question were familiar with some of the censorship that has occurred on reddit or if it was a vote based on a belief that it does not happen. I hope that the question did not mislead anyone into thinking that it was about censorship or misconduct on /r/mcpublic specifically.

WCS wrote this a while back. may be relevant here: https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/437-ac-pmc-community-and-what-that-means/?p=3113

Yes. If you read the original post above, you'll see that I have discovered a method to generate public moderation logs from reddit itself without the need for any third party bot/script/website setups, and the reddit user go1dfish has provided an alternative frontend for veiwing the logs. all that a subreddit moderator has to do in order to set it up is invite the account /u/publicmodlogs to become a moderator of their subreddit, granting it no permissions. if you'd prefer not to read the post text above, I also wrote a post on reddit about this for anyone curious about how it works: https://www.reddit.com/r/publicmodlogs/comments/360amy/so_how_does_this_public_moderation_logs_thing/ That said, this isn't so much a request for it to be done as much as it is seeking input from the community on whether they would like to see this on /r/mcpublic.

No, there's no checkbox for public moderation logs on reddit. The Reddit admins wanted to introduce them as an option a while back, but a handful of mods on large subreddits said they didn't want it to be available as an option since people would clamor for it and it would make them look bad if they said they didn't want it. kind of weird logic, but thats the gist of the argument. They also said it would cause witch hunts against moderators when the mods enforce a rule because the community was too dumb to understand how the rules applied to any given situation. https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/ov7rt/moderators_feedback_requested_on_enabling_public/ So the admins at the time sided with these mods and chose not to supply the feature natively, allowing workaround options like /r/uncensorship and /r/POLITIC and /r/undelete, and now /u/publicmodlogs to spring up as solutions for those who want them. edit: If the Reddit admins did provide the public log they were talking about years back, then it would be much more feature-rich than what we have currently. It would have the option to tag mod actions with reasons or rules, the options to anonymize the acting moderator, etc. Things which would make things better. But a lack of those features is still better than complete opacity in many cases on reddit, in my opinion. Again, /r/mcpublic might not need this, especially since it's about a set of game servers and not really about the subreddit. But it's my hope that folks here will set it up to lend support for the concept more broadly on reddit.