Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
4 comments
Ms. Penny 🐝 Oaken

@rmbles @Gargron while it’s normal to want transparency regarding moderation policy, “how many” is a detail that would allow monkeywrenchers to plan abuse of the report system and harassment or moderators.

We should expect policy transparency and for admins to acknowledge mistakes, but details won’t help us know if the right thing is being done.

(Exception: the answer “not enough moderators” is almost always true)

kaukamieli

@PennyOaken
I don't see how that's true. They can flood you anyway without numbers too. And it would be relevant info for selecting where to migrate. I want good mod to masses ratio.
@rmbles @Gargron

Ms. Penny 🐝 Oaken

@kaukamieli @rmbles @Gargron the analogy I use when explaining the security implications of publicly detailing your moderation team / resources is this:
Your moderators, and the tech they use (Reddit’s AutoModerator, for instance) are directly analogous to an Intrusion Detection System, an IDS.
You don’t disclose the configuration, location, or number of your IDS appliances, or intruders circumvent them.

Ms. Penny 🐝 Oaken

@kaukamieli @rmbles @Gargron if you’re shopping for instances, you’re going to get more mileage out of “does this instance have a public moderation policy, and does it incorporate a way to handle ban appeals, mistakes (by users and moderators), and improvement?”. Unless an instance is run by a dedicated social media corporation, “fast” moderation is the trade off from “Fast, Good, Cheap” and “more moderators” only makes diminishing returns on “fast”, sometimes at the expense of “good”

Go Up