top 100 commentsshow all 108

[–]magnora7[S] 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I'm excited to release these 4 simple mod rules, d3rr and I, along with many members of the saidit community, think having reasonable limits on mods will make for a much more friendly and useful website in the long run, hopefully avoiding each sub being a little fiefdom filled with powermods like it is on reddit.

I've added these mod rules to the main terms and content policy page:

[–]fred_red_beans 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds like a good idea, thanks for keeping Saidit cool!

[–]OmegaUser296 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (26 children)

Okay regardless of "In good faith & on topic" what about the individual sub rules? We're still allowed to ban based on those right?

Example: If a comment or something is in good faith and on topic but breaks a subs individual rules can they be removed?

[–]magnora7[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

If a comment or something is in good faith and on topic but breaks a subs individual rules can they be removed?

Good question. No it cannot be removed or else that mod would be breaking the site rules. Subs cannot "undo" saidit site rules in their own sub rules. Otherwise the rules are useless because anyone can circumvent them.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So if I make a sub /s/OnlyMonsterTruckPics and state that as a rule, and then someone posts a monster truck video or Wikipedia article (good faith and on topic, I think), can I remove it or not?

[–]magnora7[S] 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You would have the choice to remove it or not. If you decide you want the sub to have only pictures and someone posts a video, then you can remove that because it's off-topic, as the topic is pictures, not videos. The enforcement of this would be up to the mods of each sub.

[–]Fleursdumal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

S/lesbians only wants lesbians (or at least people who we assume are lesbians) posting or commenting. So we can have that rule but need to make it clear in the side bar and remove from all?

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yup that's correct.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    That's a great way for someone to harass @d3rr and ruin his vision for his sub.

    (btw if the topic is monster truck pics, isn't a video or article off-topic? IANAL)

    [–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    So if it is on topic and in good faith but breaks a rule of the sub we can't remove them? Then what is the point of individual sub rules.

    [–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I think you can remove based on sub rules as long as the sub rule does not conflict with any mod rules or site rules. See

    [–]OmegaUser296 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Okay well look at s/unc0ver for example. It has rules that don't define off topic and could be broken while staying in "Good faith" and "On topic" so can I remove if they break the rules of the sub even if their still supposedly "On topic" and "In good faith"?

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes you can remove. The official explanation is that your rules are changing the topic, so your off topic is not the global sitewide off topic. You have a more restrictive topic because of your rules.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    To determine the scope of what is on-topic and what isn't.

    [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    so subofsnow banning me for answering his question about why people don't like him with a comment about him breaking the dark mode css would be a not OK ban?

    not that I care in that case, but I'd really like to be able mute irritating subs. At the moment even if I block them they still turn up in my feed and sometimes I get a faceful of bright white from that particular sub.

    [–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    We're working on a mute system, it's in the pipeline. I'm not sure on the ban, I'd have to see more about it.

    [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    wasn't a big deal.

    snow just wants to have his little fiefdom, still thinks this is reddit.

    [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    That's literally what reddit does. That would eventually ruin saidit.

    [–]OmegaUser296 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    So allowing moderators to have specific to community rules would ruin Saidit? As long as their rules are within reason the rules of communities are meant to guide the community and avoid un-wanted or repeated discussion.

    [–]Jesus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No, allowing moderators to not follow admins rules.

    [–]brickfrog 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Agreed, the Saidit mod rules as currently written by /u/magnora7 seem to indicate that repeatedly posting the same topics is allowed and sub mods would be forbidden from removing them.


    • Multiple people, or the same person, posting links to 10-20 different news articles about the same topic
    • Multiple people, or the same person, posting the same questions multiple times per day/week/month/whatever

    That is the type of thing that would often be moderated/removed by sub mods in other sites (e.g. with a "keep it fresh / search before you post" type of rule) but in the Saidit scenario those are considered "in good faith AND on topic" thus cannot be removed.

    Seems easier just to remove sub moderators from the site if Saidit doesn't really want moderation anyway.

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    If they're actively posting repeated information in bad faith, with the intent to destroy the sub, then it's not in good faith, so the mods can delete it under the rules I've posted. I hope that helps clarify.

    [–]MaximilianKohler 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It doesn't have to be in bad faith. Think a "duplicate" or "repost" rule. Often there are dozens of articles released by different websites covering the same issue. Some reddit subs resorted to removing them in favor of containing them all in one thread.

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    We want to develop a crossposting system eventually. The informal rule has been a limit of 3 reposts maximum, allowed every once in a while (not every post is posted 3 times)

    [–]bobbobbybob 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

    Power corrupts. I'm a terrible mod. But you, u/magnora7, are good at this. Thank you.

    [–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Appreciate it. You're welcome.

    [–]OmegaUser296 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

    Not to rat but rule 2, u/JasonCarswell I believe you've violated the law.

    [–]magnora7[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    He's already agreed to stop acquiring more I believe, so don't call him out please. PM me any future issues please

    [–]OmegaUser296 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)


    [–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

    Not to rat

    ...or so you say

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    You can fuck right off.

    You lured me into your story of trying to help with the /s/HolocaustSkepticism by inserting yourself unnecessarily in drama where you shouldn't have been not knowing anything about the matter, and to further add insult to injury you fucking locked the sub so that I can't even un-mod myself with a fucking /s/TINFOILHAT in the corner - as if it's a fucking conspiracy.

    Half of that is my fault as I mistook shit-disturber OmegaUser296 for the good Optimus85 as I wasn't paying attention, and to be honest I'd forgotten about your CSS and jailbreak sub in limbo.

    For the record I'm not up to date on everything that's happened since, much less checking my messages.

    I'll address my shit when I get to it, when I feel like it. There's not much fucking point though is there. Regardless, keep your nose in your own shit.

    So, ya. You can fuck right off twerp.

    [–]Wrang1er 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    I wish there were downvotes for people like you.

    [–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    You should know about what that shit-disturber did (/s/HolocaustSkepticism) before you judge "people like me" whatever that might actually mean. Also note that while I told the self-confessed rat off I did not call him names and spoke my truth while abiding by the Pyramid of Debate (my graphic design, as with the SaidIt logo). That stupid arbitrary limit rule came AFTER all that shit and while I was away dealing with the fallout of all his manufactured bullshit and as you currently can see I am NOT in violation if that's what your exceptionally ambiguous beef is about. If you want downvotes you are free to start your own old-Reddit-based federated site and downvote me there as much as you want. Meanwhile, continue to be a 12 days old agro-comment sniper that you seem to be if you must, but if you continue to attack folks and drag down the discourse you will certainly be dealt with by M7D3.

    [–]Ian 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I suggest changing "good faith" to "following the pyramid" or something. Posting in bad faith (trolling etc.) could very well be on topic AND adhering to the pyramid.

    [–]Drewski 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'd prefer to err on the side of not removing here, I've seen many people labeled a troll or a shill in order to disrupt or shut down a conversation.

    [–]bobbobbybob 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    This is true.I can confess to deliberate on-topic, pyramid of debate trolling, when a person refuses to engage with that pyramid.

    Its a little more satisfying that just reporting bad users/mods.

    I think it should be allowed. Learning how to ignore clever trolling is a life skill.

    [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Can we have this as a pinned thread?

    [–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Sure, done

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


    [–]zyxzevn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

    But how do we prevent comments that are forum-sliding or meant to stir emotions?

    And some people will keep on spamming that all moon-landings or all shootings were a hoax. How do we bring that back to normal discussions?

    Solution? - such replies could be marked with a "funny" or "alternative" flag to show that it is not the main goal of the sub or post.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Moderators can crack down on those things if they choose to do so, that's still within the bounds of what's allowed.

    Deciding what's an acceptable narrative and what isn't, is the purpose of the voting system, so I don't think we need an additional flagging system. I appreciate the ideas though.

    [–]Ian 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    Deciding what's an acceptable narrative and what isn't, is the purpose of the voting system,

    wait wat

    I thought an up and down votes on reddit was used to make users adhere to the group narrative or be banished to [HIDDEN] while the insightful/funny was specifically designed to avoid group narratives?

    [–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    We can vote up., not down. That still allows things to rise to the top, just not get pushed under and drowned.

    [–]Ian 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    A popularity contest is quite different from ideological censorship.

    [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm emo though, and not popular.

    [–]RatMan29 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The reddit downvote is a helpful mechanism we ought to have. At least under RES each reader can decide for himself whether, and at what vote total, unpopular comments should be hidden, so it's not comparable to deletion.

    [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    ok fuck off back to reddit.

    The downvote is a tool of marxist cancel culture

    [–]Wrang1er 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Whats the upvote then?

    [–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    sunshine and fucking unicorns, that's what

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah that's also true. But it's true the number of votes something gets determines how high it is on the front page or the comments page, that's all I meant

    [–]fred_red_beans 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    While I don't think spamming is acceptable, if the topic is moon landings or shootings, someone should be able to argue whatever their point of view is on it, hoax or no.

    [–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Saying the shootings were exercises is a normal discussion. Reddit and YouTube censored more videos exposing psyops than any other user content. If someone talks about the shooting as real, I have the right to discuss why it is fake.

    [–]teelo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    So, speaking of the moderator logs. I've noticed that its kinda useless for checking moderator actions when removing comments, when I can't actually see the comment that was removed anymore. The links in the moderator logs just direct to a "there doesn't seem to be anything here". How can I check if a moderator followed rule 4 if I can't see the comment they removed?

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Just leave the comment up? If we leave every comment up that's removed, then what's the point of having moderators at all? You see what I mean?

    [–]teelo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

    Have a separate page that is only accessable via the moderator log to see what the comment was. Even just an expand button JSON query within the moderator log.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Not a bad idea. We've got a to-do list that's already 95 items long, and your project idea would probably take 5-10 hours minimum. I'll add it to the list. If someone wants to help, our code is all open source and we could use help to develop useful features like this.

    [–]teelo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Sure I can jump in and help. Just point me to the repo?

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Here you go sir. You could probably search "removed" in the codebase to find where to start finding the code for removed comments. I think the "removed" flag is written in to the database in its own column for each comment. Good luck, let me know if I can help

    [–]teelo 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    So I don't really know python, so I can't write the code, but I can certainly give some direction to what I suspect should work., line 346:

    if hasattr(, "link_id"):
      parent_link_name =
      item.parent_link = parent_links[parent_link_name]

    Append something like "?frommodlog=true" to that item.parent_link, so that we send a _GET parameter to the comment page signalling that we're viewing it from the moderator log., line 1467:

    def keep_item(self, item):
       if not self.show_deleted:
           if item.deleted and not item.num_children:
               return False
       return item.keep_item(item)

    If I'm reading that right, if the item is flagged deleted, it returns false. So add a check for: 1) the _GET parameter we defined before, and 2) that the commentID in the URL matches this item. If it does, return True instead.

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Very nice, I'm impressed. I think your approach is good, to send an API add-on to display the comments page in "modlog" mode. Smart.

    I am not quite sure you have the right lines in, but you're very close. I think that code is for deletions, when a user deletes a comment of their own volition. We are looking for removals, which is when an admin or mod removes the comment. I think the code to filter out removed comments would probably be around that area in too. If you find that part, then we'll practically have the solution.

    Then lastly we'd have to figure out how to intercept the API call and do the correct action. has most of the API handling. So somehow that switch needs to be able to be flipped by the correct API call to a comment page.

    Definitely getting close... keep going and we might actually get this feature developed!

    [–]teelo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Theres this bit in, line 1750:

    class CommentsController(SubredditListingController):
    title_text = _('comments')
    def keep_fn(self):
        def keep(item):
            if c.user_is_admin:
                return True
            if item._deleted:
                return False
            if isinstance(, FriendsSR):
                if or
                    return False
            if c.user_is_loggedin:
                if item.subreddit.is_moderator(c.user):
                    return True
                if item.author_id == c.user._id:
                    return True
            if item._spam:
                return False
            return item.keep_item(item)
        return keep

    But that only checks for deleted (by the author, I presume) or if its marked spam. Do moderator removals just mark comments as spam?

    I wouldn't know how to send the extra parameter or detect it. Not a python dev.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Marking spam and removing are separate operations an admin can do to remove a comment. I am not sure the difference between the two, honestly. Maybe when it's removed it does mark it as item._spam. Does item._removed exist as a classifier, I wonder?

    The code bit you pointed out looks very close to what we need though, you're definitely hot on the trail

    [–]md_saidit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm new here but I second teelo's suggestion, sounds like a good idea.

    [–]Vigte 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Sounds good to me!

    [–]Void 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    why 40 subs thats way too much it should be 5 at most. powermods are ultimately what ruined reddit

    [–]Wrang1er 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think 10 is a good number

    [–]md_saidit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah who needs to moderate 40 subs! Who even wants to? One type of person: the powermod.

    [–]VantaFount 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I accept these terms.
    And I would like to see the Canary.

    [–]potipharbreen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Nice - that's exactly what I told them at reddit. All you need are site-wide rules that are enforced.

    Otherwise every sub will be under the sway of some jobless teen loser to run as his/her own little personal fiefdom.

    The 'Stanford Experiment' showed how even highly educated, intelligent college kids can turn in Junior Hitlers when given a tiny bit of power over their fellow students.

    Reddit failed to recognize this basic psychology of human nature.

    [–]teelo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What are the Saidit admins views of the Reddit moderator guidelines (which the Reddit admins never enforce)? Specifically, this part:

    We know management of multiple communities can be difficult, but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community. In addition, camping or sitting on communities for long periods of time for the sake of holding onto them is prohibited.

    Its incredibly common for Reddit moderators to ban users for things they posted on other subs. Sometimes its other subs they moderate. Sometimes its other subs they're just posters of but didn't like what they saw. Sometimes they run bots that just ban everyone who participates on rival subs.

    This is a practice that is supposed to be against Reddits moderator guidelines, but, well, have you ever heard of the admins actually enforcing it? I sure haven't.

    I don't see anything like this in your mod rules, but maybe I missed it. Is it a policy you will consider, and actually enforce (unlike Reddit)?

    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    Rule 4 example: If a thread is "What's your favorite sports team" in a sub you moderate, and then someone comments "The Bengals" you are not allowed to ban them, even as a joke. It's on topic, and not dragging discussion down the pyramid of debate and so is in good faith. If someone comments something like "kys dummy Bengals are best idiot" then you have the option to ban them because it's not in good faith as per the pyramid of debate, despite being on topic. As a final example, if someone comments in that thread "Gouda cheese melts well" you have the option to ban them, as they're not on topic, despite not dragging discussion downward on the pyramid of debate. However if someone posts something both on topic, and in good faith, you CANNOT delete this type of post repeatedly or else you will lose all moderator privileges on saidit after a couple warnings.

    I can understand why you'd need a wiki for all these intricate rules.


    One person cannot moderate more than 40 subs. Creating multiple accounts to bypass this is not allowed.

    Unenforceable rule? Why not just ask if people could not, pls?

    [–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Why not just ask if people could not, pls?

    That's what we are doing. Isn't that exactly what rules are? :)

    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    Me breaking unenforceable rules makes you look dumb.

    Me disregarding a kind request makes me look dumb.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Consider it a kind request, then. Not sure how else I am supposed to communicate this to thousands of people for years on end, other than by making it an announcement.

    And later people can say "Why did I get in trouble? It was just a suggestion" when I actually have to enforce them. So your idea doesn't work in practice, but I get what you mean.

    [–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    when I actually have to enforce them.

    If you can convince me that you can enforce rule #4, I won't try to convince you that social means is the best way to stop asshats. :)

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Enforcing 4 will be easy, you just watch for mods who repeatedly delete comments that are both in good faith and on topic, and users will also report bad mods to me, and I will take action. It's not complex, tbh.

    [–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    brain fart, I meant #2.

    [–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh yeah, it's definitely possible to circumvent 2. It's just another roadblock for them to have to deal with though. But we still have access to IP addresses and login/logout timestamps and other information, so it's still possible to figure it out in most cases. It's just one extra step to help prevent powermods, it's not a complete end-all-be-all solution to everything. There is no silver bullet to a lot of these problems, just small steps that add up to make it harder for people to game the system.

    [–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm sure we'll be reporting mods who get out of line.

    [–]Snow 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    You moderate more than 40 subs.

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes, as does d3rr, but we are the admins who built the site, and had to fill it out a bit when it was first starting off, so there were enough places to post to.

    [–]solder0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Sounds fair. I currently moderate two subs, but I'd be interested in sharing, or ceding modship to anyone that asks. There was no martial arts sub, so I made it. I didn't know that there was a 3D printing sub even after searching, so silly me made one of those too. Can you delete the duplicate sub?

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Nice. It's okay to have a duplicate sub, there's really no way to delete. Just use one sub and let the other fade away, that's the best I think

    [–]solder0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Okay, I'll post on your sub then.

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Cool, sounds good

    [–]teelo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The 40 sub limit still seems excessive. If even just a couple of them get popular theres no way a moderator could keep up with being consistent across them.

    [–]tuesday 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    <3 <3 <3


    [–]zabaru 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Ok, some great rules, and some not so great, but still a LOT better than reddit!


    [–]Nummnutzcracker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What about brand bashing? Does that counts as bad faith?

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Nah that should be fine to bash corporate brands, as long as it's not violent or just outright hateful with no other redeeming qualities. Basic pyramid of debate stuff

    [–]Justin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Is there any way for Saidit admins to change the mod staff on subs? For instance just replacing an inactive mod with an active user?

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes but this is a highly contentious process with waiting periods.

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes it's possible

    [–]critias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    How are moderators supposed to moderate their subs when the admins just undermine them at every turn based on any person's complaint?

    Why are average idiots on this site allowed to undermine moderators?

    What's the purpose of mod controls if we can't use them?

    In good faith doesn't mean shit because everyone claims good faith

    [–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    The purpose of mod controls is to remove spam, not to remove opinions you disagree with.

    If you are unable to distinguish between the two, you don't belong as a mod on saidit.

    Stop censoring people who simply disagree. Last warning. If in doubt, don't censor. Simple as that.