If you have specific ways that we could improve, please comment here or use one of the other avenues provided.

There was a lot of angst thrown around on the last issue and the mod team acknowledged a need for transparency and this issue seems to be the same problem and now there is another indication that the mod team needs to be transparent and it’s been maybe a week? I’d love to see some real recognition that the site rules are binding to the mods too not just a “oh we’ll do better this time, really”. I should know if my actions are ban worthy or problematic, and you should be following that same rule book.

If something falls outside of the rules but is a problem maybe my comment gets removed, maybe I get messaged but it shouldn’t just be a ban cause some mod didn’t like it but didn’t have something grounding that decision.

edit: for what it’s worth this is how I have been treated and I missed the “objectionable post”, I just find the unilateral action & communication coming out after troubling

edit 2: I also notice that in both cases that the need for greater transparency was acknowledged it didn’t change the mod team’s actions or belief that they should have done anything different (comms were shut and we’re still going to be banning people based on upvotes, unless there’s several more days of struggle sessions I suppose)

We have in the past used upvote auditing to determine mod actions specifically to address the CoC clause you are quoting, and we will continue to do so in the future.

I’m not opposed to it as a holistic measure in principle (e.g. if someone is clearly and consistently upvoting CoC violating content and not others), but are there specific criteria that you plan to use? This warning is quite vague, and carries the risk of being reinterpreted in the future to permit, say, banning people for commenting in opposition to a planned change in a struggle session, in conjunction with upvoting similar comments in that struggle session.

When multiple people of intersecting marginalized communities say to us “this comment that made me feel unsafe has a lot of upvotes, which make me feel worse, can something be done about this?” we acted. I’m sorry if those actions made the recipients feel unsafe, which is why we are asking mods to have more than a single upvote as evidence for an action.

Thank you for sharing the admin team’s thought process. I understand that it can be difficult in the moment to make administrative actions.

Nonetheless, I hope that admins have reached out to the affected users and acknowledge their feelings and the steps the admin team will take to ensure their concerns will not be an issue going forward.

If you have specific ways that we could improve, please comment here or use one of the other avenues provided.

I’m a little late to the party in terms of the struggle session — I only knew about it after this post had already been made, so I’m not intimately familiar with the specifics. I will also confess that I’m not intimately familiar with what correct moderation decisions should necessarily be, since I’m not a mod/admin.

That said, maybe if you had wanted to use the upbear list, messaging all users who upbeared it, good faith or not, with counterpropaganda would have been a good idea to make it a teaching moment for those who saw that comment and could potentially use a takedown even if they disagreed? Explain the difference between “working with fascists” and potentially converting them, or explain why even potentially converting them isn’t worth trying, etc.

Thank you for the comment, I won’t be removing it.

Thank you for responding to the comment.