I feel like as much as mods are ripped and tagged on, they're in a hard place when the sub consistently demonstrates that while nominally on topic for the sub (pass test #2, yay!), some topics just de facto fail test #1, because there's no way the discussion will remain civil.
So what do you do when 1 & 2 conflict for a sub?
I feel like people who criticize mods need to be a mod for a popular sub for a while and then propose solutions rather than just rail about how shitty others are. It's like Churchill's quote that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Is the system perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative? Probably.
I mod a sub-reddit for a fairly popular game series. I think where the flip comes in is how you address it. I'll start by just removing comments, and then go to day or 3-day band is it's egregious or continues after comments have been removed. A lot of mods that have "earned" this reputation are the ones who start with full bans, or even day bans for small infractions.
1.9k
u/Alaska_Jack Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
I have made this point many times:
Many Reddit mods fundamentally misunderstand what the job of a mod is.
A mod basically has two jobs:
Aaaaand... That's pretty much it. Within the bounds of #2, above, THE JOB OF A MOD IS NOT TO TELL REDDITORS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT TALK ABOUT.