Establish a public log of moderator actions on the /r/mcpublic subreddit

[Mumberthrax]

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.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Mumberthrax

[Trooprm32]

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.

 

Removed posts are removed because they violate the rules. Having those posts accessible totally defies the point in removing them, they can be commented on and viewed at anyone's discretion.

 

I entirely disagree with a public log.

[Mumberthrax]

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?

[Trooprm32]

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?

 

Server adverts, harassment/troll threads, rule breaking posts ect ect ect. You were a subreddit moderator before you removed yourself, I'm sure you have some knowledge of what goes on that doesn't need to be explained or explicitly shown. If someone has their content removed and want to dispute it, that's what modmail is for.

[Mumberthrax]

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.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Mumberthrax

[Trooprm32]

I have not removed myself as a moderator of the subreddit, and I am aware of the kind of content in the moderation logs.

 

Oops my mistake, was thinking of someone else. But looking at the latest removed post; you should understand why we would want to keep that out of the public eyes.

[Mrloud15]

Hello Mumber, 

 

We have discussed this during our most recent admin meeting, and we have decided not to implement this feature. The primary concern is that removed posts would be linked in the public logs.

[Mumberthrax]

Hello Mumber, 

 

We have discussed this during our most recent admin meeting, and we have decided not to implement this feature. The primary concern is that removed posts would be linked in the public logs.

 

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.

[tobylane]

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?

 

Are the concerns you listed not enough?

[Narissis]

If the issue with this is that the moderator log tool in question would create links to removed content, maybe the solution would be another tool? One that shows "<moderator> removed <thread> for <reason>" but does not actually provide a link into said thread?

 

Just a thought. I don't think such a log is necessary at all, but if it has the support of the community, then it's worth looking at appropriate options.

[Mrloud15]

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.

Personally, I don't want to give it a try because it would effectively remove our ability to moderate the subreddit. What would be the point in removing a post that is harassing or doxxing someone if it's going to instantly be shown on another just as public list? 

 

No all of the admins were not present, no it was not an unanimous agreement, and this post was linked to in the meeting.

[Mumberthrax]

No all of the admins were not present, no it was not an unanimous agreement, and this post was linked to in the meeting.

 

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?

[Narissis]

There may be an added dimension to this, though... it doesn't seem as though it was communicated clearly exactly what the log would entail.

 

People who supported the idea of a log that shows a moderator took an action on a thread may not support a log that actually shows the thread in question, thereby making it functionally impossible for problem threads to actually be removed.

[CROCKODUCK]

Forgive my confusion, but what is the point of having a tech spend the time to set this up? The initial argument for how the posts wile either be boring or harmful clearly shows that no one cares about them? Are we doing this to say we did it? What will the community care about the logs? I'm genuinely confused...

[Mumberthrax]

Forgive my confusion, but what is the point of having a tech spend the time to set this up? The initial argument for how the posts wile either be boring or harmful clearly shows that no one cares about them? Are we doing this to say we did it? What will the community care about the logs? I'm genuinely confused...

 

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.

 

There may be an added dimension to this, though... it doesn't seem as though it was communicated clearly exactly what the log would entail.

 

People who supported the idea of a log that shows a moderator took an action on a thread may not support a log that actually shows the thread in question, thereby making it functionally impossible for problem threads to actually be removed.

 

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.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Mumberthrax

[CROCKODUCK]

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.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, what will the community hope to improve with these logs? Second checking the moderators? Or will this create long strenuous arguments which cause more harm. I understand your personal vendetta against the head admins, but that should not be influencing things such as this that will have two outcomes, nobody pays attention to them so we've wasted time (which some find valuable) or it will create a fallout from certain posts being removed and will cause moderators and other staff to possibly second guess themselves with a microscope over their shoulder. Perhaps you should consider leaving personal bias at the door before creating ideas and filing them under the false pretense that it's for the "community"

[Mumberthrax]

Perhaps I'm not being clear, what will the community hope to improve with these logs? Second checking the moderators? Or will this create long strenuous arguments which cause more harm. I understand your personal vendetta against the head admins, but that should not be influencing things such as this that will have two outcomes, nobody pays attention to them so we've wasted time (which some find valuable) or it will create a fallout from certain posts being removed and will cause moderators and other staff to possibly second guess themselves with a microscope over their shoulder. Perhaps you should consider leaving personal bias at the door before creating ideas and filing them under the false pretense that it's for the "community"

 

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.