Well, I was known for being fast on the ban. I don’t fucking play. But I wouldn’t have banned you for that.
I would have told you to stfu and take the removal because it doesn’t matter what someone else does, it matters what you do. Each post gets handled at the time it comes, and that’s how it goes. Trying to swing dick like you did isn’t cool
But yeah, way over the line to ban for that. At most a 24 hour ban to give you time to cool off after being told to stfu lol
I don’t think that required a ban, but they are right in saying “we can’t see everything” when they say that just showing posts that made it to the top that meet your criteria doesn’t mean your post shouldn’t have been deleted.
It’d be easy to ruin a subreddit’s goals by just overwhelming the mods with rule-breaking content until it’s impossible to remove all of it, because then you’d be bound to have at least one example where rules were broken but post is popular.
I mean, I’d argue depending on your audience, “People who meme mental illnesses are just making a clownshow out of mental illnesses” is probably a very popular opinion. like you’d have to go to 4ch probably to get really angry crowds.
If the mods admit that they would have removed the posts had they seen them (implied by the “we can’t see everything” response) - yet they’re not open to being alerted to problem posts (implied by the “checkmate” sass) - how can they fairly expect users not to be frustrated by the unequal application of the rules?
The correct mod response here would have been “we understand you disagree, but we don’t feel the posts you linked violate the rules” or “you’re right, we missed those too,” not “we didn’t see those but also we’re banning you for telling us about them.”
They breed the hostile environment they complain so much about, and the cycle continues.
That’s what I mean by not being open to being alerted to problem posts. For many subs, there are too many reports to sort through, and the mods welcome modmail to point out something that has slipped under the radar. This sub doesn’t allow that, so they won’t be able to work with their subs’ members for a fairer application of the rules.
A rule that permits a moderator to remove something because its “not unpopular enough” is not a rule. Its a suggestion. And while this is certainly one way of approaching moderation, this style does tend to create a lot of discontent in users.
At the end of the day, Reddit moderators are unpaid volunteers. When the standards for Reddit moderation are : have no job, no life, be willing to wade through literal online garbage 24/7, and do it unpaid, you’re going to get exactly what Reddit has. Terrible moderators that go on power trips constantly because of tantrums, and a very very tiny fraction of people who do not value themselves enough.
deleted by creator
Well, I was known for being fast on the ban. I don’t fucking play. But I wouldn’t have banned you for that.
I would have told you to stfu and take the removal because it doesn’t matter what someone else does, it matters what you do. Each post gets handled at the time it comes, and that’s how it goes. Trying to swing dick like you did isn’t cool
But yeah, way over the line to ban for that. At most a 24 hour ban to give you time to cool off after being told to stfu lol
I don’t think that required a ban, but they are right in saying “we can’t see everything” when they say that just showing posts that made it to the top that meet your criteria doesn’t mean your post shouldn’t have been deleted.
It’d be easy to ruin a subreddit’s goals by just overwhelming the mods with rule-breaking content until it’s impossible to remove all of it, because then you’d be bound to have at least one example where rules were broken but post is popular.
I mean, I’d argue depending on your audience, “People who meme mental illnesses are just making a clownshow out of mental illnesses” is probably a very popular opinion. like you’d have to go to 4ch probably to get really angry crowds.
If the mods admit that they would have removed the posts had they seen them (implied by the “we can’t see everything” response) - yet they’re not open to being alerted to problem posts (implied by the “checkmate” sass) - how can they fairly expect users not to be frustrated by the unequal application of the rules?
The correct mod response here would have been “we understand you disagree, but we don’t feel the posts you linked violate the rules” or “you’re right, we missed those too,” not “we didn’t see those but also we’re banning you for telling us about them.”
They breed the hostile environment they complain so much about, and the cycle continues.
This is not the case, not they say “report and move on”. Reporting is literally alerting them to the problem post.
That’s what I mean by not being open to being alerted to problem posts. For many subs, there are too many reports to sort through, and the mods welcome modmail to point out something that has slipped under the radar. This sub doesn’t allow that, so they won’t be able to work with their subs’ members for a fairer application of the rules.
deleted by creator
A rule that permits a moderator to remove something because its “not unpopular enough” is not a rule. Its a suggestion. And while this is certainly one way of approaching moderation, this style does tend to create a lot of discontent in users.
At the end of the day, Reddit moderators are unpaid volunteers. When the standards for Reddit moderation are : have no job, no life, be willing to wade through literal online garbage 24/7, and do it unpaid, you’re going to get exactly what Reddit has. Terrible moderators that go on power trips constantly because of tantrums, and a very very tiny fraction of people who do not value themselves enough.