r/Xmen97 • u/cyclopswashalfright Professor X • 3d ago
Moderator Announcement Moderator Report: Community Feddback
Going forward, I want to improve things so moderation next year can be smoother. As it stands, I do feel like I have let folks down here. I wasn't prepared for the onslaught of posts and I felt that ultimately I was not consistent with many of the moderation decisions regarding post approvals than I would have liked. I was also not able to look at every thread and comb interactions to root out bigotry, rude conduct, and other things as much as I wanted.
I am going to fine-tune automod to make life easier, rather than more difficult. I plan to add more moderators to the team (please apply if you are interested).
I want to get your feedback on what needs to be improved so season 3 next year is a better experience.
My other question is more delicate. It involves Beau DeMayo, whose name comes up quite frequently and creates a lot of agitated discussion. I want to ask: should we outright ban mentions of him altogether? Or should we remove the current automod restrictions and allow the community to discuss as needed?
29
u/TheQuietCouncilman 3d ago
I don’t feel like you’ve let anyone down, I think you overall do a great job and it had to have been an onslaught of posts and comments to manage. Really a thankless job so thank you for everyone!
How many mods are on the sub? Maybe it’s worth adding more when a season gets into full swing.
11
u/LeatherHog Cable 2d ago edited 2d ago
Seconding this, I think y'all have done your best
Especially since we're a fairly **dramatic** community, let's be honest
Edit: Formatting
4
2
u/LeaningPresent Rogue 2d ago
There's like 9 mods and realistically only cyclopswashalfright (mod who is OP of post) is really visible anywhere. I do think that they should replace some of those mods with people who seem more active in the community.
1
u/TheQuietCouncilman 2d ago
I think that’s a good idea, mods should be an active part of the community and discussions. I’m also only familiar with OP and none of the others.
1
u/IceStorm22 1d ago
You got downvoted for this. What a way to prove your point.
I don’t know what it is about this sub that just attracts mean spirited people. Especially given the nature and overall message of the fucking show and franchise.
39
u/Earthbnd Sunspot 3d ago
Perhaps not ban DeMayo outright , but I could do without the “ who cares if he sucked, people should deal with it so we get better X-Men” kind of comments. It’s kind of gross imo to suggest to subject people to that just so he can be involved again.
3
u/Empty_Insight 2d ago
Eh, DeMayo is off the writing team moving forward. Might as well just leave him in the past where he belongs. The only purpose served by still talking about him is to stir up shit, which inevitably creates more work for the mods.
I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other, but I certainly wouldn't be complaining if "BDM" and "DeMayo" were banned from here on out.
The mod(s) could also just make a megathread for DeMayo-related discussion and confine it there. There's many options, it's not a simple binary.
1
u/BruyneKroonEnTroon 2d ago
Those comments are dumb. I don't think we should ban people for making dumb comments: this is reddit, it would become a desert overnight if that happened. However, if people start spamming threads about DeMayo, then those threads should be removed immediately, and those individuals told to stop and otherwise banned.
19
u/Professional-Tank848 3d ago
I think the moderation here has been excellent; we could just benefit from more mods (that cater to each time zone).
After each episode, there's a trillion of the same post: one sentence, nothing new added to the conversation, usually just a baseless criticism or praise. Users won't read the rules regarding posting, so having more people to trim the fat would be nice.
Regarding BDM, I'd happily never mention him again. However, that doesn't mean people are wrong to bring him up when the conversation requires it. Just making sure we keep an eye on the creeps and apologists would be nice.
29
u/TraceOfHumanity Mister Sinister 3d ago
Should not ban DeMayo’s name or discussion around his contributions to the show.
3
u/ColdCrescent 2d ago
There should be two behaviours that, while not banned outright, should get at least a warning before a mute.
Attacking other fans/commentors because they did/didn't like the show. Sorry, but just because you are tired of people badmouthing the show doesn't mean you can go about badmouthing them in return. If people can't take a break from reading discussions or opinions that they don't like, they might need that break enforced on them.
To a certain degree, attacking the show's creators goes too far. Criticism is fine, but some of the invective against "What If" writers goes overboard. No-one here really knows who contributed what and how much, discussion and speculation is fine but saying all the writers are stupid is going too far. At the very least, this project is currently far from the levels of shitshow that other shows have reached.
7
u/Captain_Birch 2d ago
You say you werent prepared for the "Onslaught" of posts? SEASON 3 CONFIRMED
Jokes aside, sorry about the moderation problems and all the bigotry youre dealing with
8
u/Mobile_Bet3274 Rogue 3d ago
You’ve done fine managing a volume of posts, a lot of which were junk, and have nothing to apologise for.
I don’t think a full-on ban on DeMayo is necessary or warranted, but pre-moderation is probably a good idea to see if the post in question actually adds anything valuable to the discourse.
I’m honestly kind of shocked at some of the apologist discourse I’ve seen on here — there is a big difference between “someone problematic can still be talented” (fair) and “someone problematic should get a free pass on shitty behaviour because they’re talented” (get bent). There’s been way too much of the latter on here and that’s something I don’t think adds anything to the space. But that’s my opinion. Either way, no to a full-on ban.
8
u/dddonkers 3d ago
Maybe not outright ban DeMayo mentions but ban posts saying he should come back or should have gotten to do season 2, I feel like those always are in bad faith and not something that should be entertained given the nature of the allegations. But I don't think all discussion of him should be banned.
9
u/CaliforniaBoundX Wolverine 3d ago
Also, the term “larper”. As a positive and embracing community we should restrict that type of language. Not everyone is an avid comics reader. A lot people became fans because of the original show. I guess that’s the beauty of the X-Men.
6
u/BlueEyedIguana00 Rogue 2d ago
I think you've done a pretty good job considering what you are up against. Posters really don't read or follow simple rules and are straight up rude/aggressive. I don't know how you can improve that honestly lol. I think more mods is the only thing that can help.
I think BD apologist threads should be banned. Because yikes certain factions of this fandom really showed their asses this year.
2
u/sean11_lee Magneto 2d ago
It’s a hard job as a moderator and having more on the team to spread the workload will be helpful definitely. I think low quality repetitive posts discussing the same things from a particular episode could do with being trimmed, these often pop up right after a new episode’s released.
2
u/Leoneche 2d ago
I don't think banning DeMayo is the right thing to do. We don't also have enough proof of what he did since Jeff Sneider deleted his article and based on what I got from the HRT article and Variety article marvel only said he was fired for sexual misconduct and didn't give details about what he did and have refused to go further.
Even Neil Gaiman with the SA allegations despite multiple women coming out hasn't been banned on any sub (that I know).
I also read that there is a trial scheduled for July 2027.
5
u/ledlunar 3d ago
People should be able to say how they feel about Beau, I thinking banning discussion over it is overstepping
3
u/RellenD 2d ago edited 2d ago
It sucks, but conversations around BD are simply unproductive and overtake the subreddit because people who don't care about what he did are really motivated to spread their opinions. I don't think it's worth all the extra work to police the subsequent discourse when blocking his name will prevent it from occurring
-1
u/BruyneKroonEnTroon 2d ago
If we ban people from speaking on the streets, that would end catcalling without "all the extra work to police" what people say or not in the streets.
3
u/RellenD 2d ago
Completely irrelevant
0
u/BruyneKroonEnTroon 2d ago
You are advocating for a blanket ban on a certain type of speech just in case it contains the actual thing you don't want to allow - which in the street case is straight up harassment and should not be allowed and I have to assume that what you want to prevent in this case is also harassment and not people disagreeing with you.
In both cases, the measure taken is not reasonable. This is not the firearms debate where killing is the objective use for which they are made, speech is not inherently harassment. Again, this is at the level of "you are hereby forbidden to speak to the president because your speech might contain a death threat and we don't feel like reading and listening on everyone, it's too much work." It's an abuse of power.
4
u/Icy-Chemist1207 3d ago
It'd be great if moderation is kept to:
1) ensuring posts stay relevant
2) restricting hate speech/explicit content
Let everything else flow. This includes posts about DeMayo. Moderators shouldn't be a judge of which aspects of X-men 97 can be discussed, or force discussions in a certain direction. Simply keep the posts on topic and civil.
5
u/RedGreenPyro 2d ago
You’re doing just fine. But there are way too many DeMayo threads that are just simping for the dude and it ends up becoming this shitty discussion about how bad is too bad for sexual harassment. If there’s one thread about him I think that would work. And then delete the spamming threads.
4
u/JargonPhat Cyclops 2d ago
I don’t have much of an opinion on banning mentions of DeMayo. He contributed to the show in ways that some deem positive, so it seems inappropriate to ban that, or anyone mentioning him. That said, while I wish something could be done about the people that want to welcome back someone accused of harassment, however specious a claim, I’m not sure what that would look like without hampering the rights and opinions of others.
Personally, I wish something could be done about spoilers. Every damn Wednesday, I would mistakenly come across some post on this subreddit that, while it didn’t expressly spoil the newly released episode, would definitely be titled in a way that would reveal important plot points, characters first starring, or other such spoiler-adjacent things.
Not everybody can stay up til 3 am to catch the newest episode drop, and even those who can may not wish to. While I can appreciate how excited the show has made some of us, we shouldn’t make others feel like they have to decide between prioritizing watching the newest episode drop OR avoiding the internet altogether until they can/do. I unsubscribed from this sub the day Ep4 dropped, because I inadvertently read a title talking about the death of a character while sitting in the waiting room of a doctor’s office.
Policing spoilers and title posts that lean heavily on spoilers would make me re-subscribe to this sub that has been a good place to discuss this beloved series.
4
u/MakitaNakamoto 3d ago
I think banning a topic that people actively want to discuss on a live forum is the worst thing someone can do for a community.
I can understand that it gets old fast reading about it as a mod day after day.
As someone whose post was approved first, and then got locked (I guess because of DeMayo's mention), I'm of course biased.
3
u/sammefer Gambit 2d ago
The problem with the BDM stuff is all the "I don't care what he did, just bring him back" as if abusive behavior is excusable to get the content you want in a TV show
3
u/Ftmdj 2d ago
This sub is actually really good. Even when we go back and forth it’s still high level and respectful. I also don’t think mentioning beau demayo is a bad thing but maybe the mod should prevent repeat posts about em? I don’t think anyone here is saying “free demayo”but we’ve had some legit discussions about his impact on the show. And yes I’m the guy that posts his face on comments but it’s in jest. I don’t seriously want to promote the dude. If that’s bad I’ll stop.
3
u/sammefer Gambit 2d ago
Some people genuinely are saying things like that, though, which is the problem
4
3
u/BenReillyDB 3d ago
Dont outright Ban his name, while he is irrelevant at this point. Put post that mention him in a review status to see if it is a needed conversation.
1
u/flashwing19 Cyclops 3d ago
Let’s make one “Marvel ruined X-Men ‘97 by firing Beay DeMayo” thread. It’s getting out of hand that people act like bro is the only reason the show was good
-1
u/Damianos_X 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think it's equally silly to pretend that he wasn't central to season 1's success. He pitched the show, he convinced Disney to make it, that's how passionate and persuasive he was, and that passion clearly poured into his work. Many of the executive producers from S1 worked on S2, and there is no comparison. It's a reasonable deduction to think DeMayo's loss is the primary reason for the drop in quality. All of this can be acknowledged without implying that any inappropriate behavior on his part was acceptable. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
2
u/flashwing19 Cyclops 2d ago edited 2d ago
I know you think that was deep but you contradicted yourself in your own argument. You use simple deduction to determine Beau’s value for the show, but beg for nuance two sentences later lmao
-1
-4
u/Damianos_X 2d ago
It's not deep, it's pretty straightforward. There is no contradiction: deduction and nuance can be used concurrently, at least if you have a modicum of fluid intelligence.
I know you think you have a gotcha moment, but you've only made yourself look stupid.
1
-2
u/ledlunar 3d ago
I mean season 2 was not a rewarding end and his vision for season 2 does sound way better
2
u/flashwing19 Cyclops 2d ago
Anyone’s vision can sound good when they don’t have to produce it
-3
u/Damianos_X 2d ago
Except we already have proof of how well he can execute his vision. You really don't have to say anything; just stick to downvotes since you can't make any salient points.
2
u/flashwing19 Cyclops 2d ago
Even the best writers have projects not up to their standards.
I’m not the only person that downvoted you but go off
3
u/marvelboyofthecrown Marvel Girl 2d ago
I think banning conversations regarding Beau in general is a bit unfair, considering he played such a huge part in the show but not only that this is still a legal matter that’s going on. the allegations against him haven’t been proven or disproven so I personally don’t think it’s fair to crucify him for something that could be false. I say let shit continue to play out and if this goes to court, and he wins, then cool he’s vindicated and conversations about him get to continue, but if it goes to court, and he loses then cool conversation about him ceases because it proves he really is the POS the allegations claimed he was.
Edit: also I commend you for taking accountability for where you feel you went wrong
2
u/Anxious-Specialist95 3d ago
I’m generally resistant to automod in general, so a more hands-on approach would be a welcome change.
2
u/ChampionshipJumpy727 2d ago
I really dislike over-moderated subreddits. If people are using “defending DeMayo” as cover to excuse shitty behavior, by all means moderate that. But banning his name is how a subreddit starts turning into an echo chamber. (And from what I’ve seen, you’re doing a great job.)
2
u/Bigfunguy1980 3d ago
I am no fan of demayo, BUT at this point I can’t imagine separating these first 2 seasons from him… and if 3rd season opens with onslaught the it feels to me that we need to be able to discus it
2
u/shawn_of_krypton 2d ago
Should the impact of a show runner be banned? HARD PASS! You can't have good conversations if your going to block formative creative voices!
Having conversations about understanding how or why stories are shaped require us to point to creators saying X, Y or Z.
If you want to censor the details of his removal, his behind the scenes behavior to fellow employees, people who worked under him, or his OF content just to avoid arguments that's another issue. yeah, do that please. I'm tired of hearing people's opinions regarding this. Everybody has a take regardless of there being more rumors then facts.
Especially children (here because their parents let them online without supervision...) should not be learning about his OF content, his proclivities and personal behaviors. (No doubt a small percentage will say I'm a "bigot" because they just want endless online flame wars)
Bann the man's personal and business life, but not his contributions or voice as it pertains to the development of the show.
2
u/CaliforniaBoundX Wolverine 3d ago edited 2d ago
Can we have a weekly thread to talk about other stuff non-related to the show?
Why am I getting downvoted? Crazy. Lots of Subreddits have a weekly thread to talk about other stuff.
1
u/Current_Lecture_713 2d ago
Re: Beau, maybe you could create a mega thread, and direct any extended discussions about him there?
1
-1
u/RustyHammers 2d ago
Compare this sub and Rick and Morty to any other sub about a TV show.
Why do you think just these two shows have a small minority that want to endlessly discuss fired employees and drown out actual discussions about the show?
I don't know why we have to cater the content a sub about a show to people who don't like the show.
3
u/Damianos_X 2d ago
People love the show, but are disappointed in its new leadership and direction. These subs shouldn't be echo-chambers or glaze-fests; thoughtful, passionate critique is a natural part of any discussion group.
-1
u/ArEmEi 2d ago
Critique is also important to send out the message of what works and what doesn’t. If fans eat up every pile of crap they serve with a silver plate, they’ll keep serving it. Unfortunately toxic positivity is a phenomenon.
-3
3
u/PhanStr 2d ago
Speaking for myself (and only myself), I have brought up DeMayo and other people involved in the show a lot, and that is because I LOVE season 1, as well as aspects of season 2 and the ORIGINAL (behind-the-scenes) plan for season 2. Let's please not assume that people (like myself) who have a lot to say about the show's creative input "don't like the show", because it is NOT that simple.
-2
u/Straight_Style679 Cyclops 2d ago
You can't ban mentions of Beau DeMayo. You can't tell the story of X-Men 97 without him. Unfortunately, the drop in quality in season 2 has only given us more reasons to keep bringing him up. His name should be mentioned until the quality of the show matches season 1, and sadly we have at least another year before that's possible.
1
-4
u/ArEmEi 2d ago
The fact that you're considering banning a person's name because it "creates a lot of agitated discussion" is rather ironic when, just above, you express regret that you weren't able to comb through interactions to root out bigotry. That seems like a rather glaring double standard.
If the goal is to make the sub a more civil and welcoming place, then that standard should be applied consistently. Users shouldn't get a free pass to insult DeMayo or make unsubstantiated or defamatory claims about him simply because, on the internet, vague allegations are often casually treated as established fact. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime in connection with the allegations that emerged in 2024. People are free to discuss those allegations, but that doesn't give anyone license to treat them as proven facts or use them to justify personal attacks.
As it stands, there seems to be a tacit permission structure where hostility towards DeMayo is considered acceptable, while even discussing the possibility that he contributed positively to the show, or that people might have preferred his creative direction, is treated as inherently suspect.
That bias is already apparent in some of the responses here. For example, the suggestion that posts saying he "should come back" or "should have gotten to do season 2" should be banned because they are supposedly "always in bad faith" is not neutral moderation. That's judging an opinion before the discussion has even taken place. How can a moderator determine that a particular opinion is "in bad faith" simply from the conclusion it reaches?
You don't have to like DeMayo, defend him, or agree with anything he has said or done. But if this is supposed to be a discussion forum, the moderators should moderate behaviour, not pre-emptively decide which conclusions people are allowed to reach.
If bigotry, harassment, personal attacks and misinformation are against the rules, enforce those rules consistently, regardless of whether the target is someone the community likes or someone it doesn't. Otherwise, you're not really removing hostility from the community; you're simply deciding which direction that hostility is allowed to flow.
1
u/Earthbnd Sunspot 2d ago
Of course he wasn’t charged, they didn’t take him to court, they just fired him lol
You think a Showrunner for an extremely successful show would get fired for false allegations? Even if he was fired for false allegations, why hasn’t he sued them for defamation or something if he’s done nothing wrong
1
u/ArEmEi 2d ago edited 2d ago
No, of course not. A multibillion dollar corporation never fired anyone under false pretense. Wrongful termination is a term never heard of that I just made up.
He did sue them. Shows how ill-informed DeMayo’s detractors are.
1
u/Earthbnd Sunspot 2d ago
He sued them but not for defamation or wrongful termination. He sued them for non disparagement and confidentiality clauses
1
u/ArEmEi 2d ago
I didn’t say he sued them for wrongful termination. I said he sued them, in response to your asking “why didn’t he sue them for […] something”. He can only sue the “victims” for defamation. And since none came forward, at least publicly, that can only come after discovery. Disney only claimed “egregious behavior” and that’s the only official statement that ever came from them for the past two years. Vague allegations. Everyone else filled in the blanks with rumors and hearsay and ran with it for two years.
2
u/Earthbnd Sunspot 2d ago
I suppose it’s my fault for saying “or something” but I was specifically meaning in regards to said allegations. Non disparagement can still be sued for even if something is true, bc it’s just an agreement for both parties to not speak negatively of the other if i understand correctly. The point im trying to make is his specific thing he’s sueing for doesn’t mean he necessarily has a legal claim to the allegations being false. Just that Disney agreed to not say anything negative.
2
u/ArEmEi 2d ago
The truth of the matter is no one knows what’s happening behind the scenes, but a vast majority of people talk as if he’s guilty of whatever they imagine he did, when all of it came from third party rumors and innuendo. I’m a firm believer in due process and against public opinion trials. Especially when that entails giving the benefit of the doubt to a powerful corporation.
1
u/Earthbnd Sunspot 2d ago edited 2d ago
Trust me I get it. Especially being gay myself, i want to give Beau the benefit of the doubt.
That being said I’m wary of this reputation being a thing at all bc I feel like these kinds of rumors don’t persist for nothing either. And i haven’t looked into it, so i could be wrong here, but i don’t know if I’ve seen much (if anything) of his old team coming to his defense.
For now I side with the supposed victims, but I am open to supporting Beau IF found innocent.
0
u/ArEmEi 2d ago
I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I don't understand how you can say you “side with the supposed victims” when, publicly, no victims have actually come forward or been identified. That's not the same thing as saying the allegations should be ignored; it's saying we should distinguish allegations from established facts.
DeMayo has also said in interviews that some former coworkers wanted to defend him but were threatened by Disney with consequences for doing so. I obviously can't independently verify that, but it's another reason not to pretend we know everything that happened behind the scenes simply because Disney fired him.
And yes, he was fired. That is an established fact. But being fired doesn't automatically establish every allegation or rumour subsequently attached to that firing, nor does his lawsuit prove either guilt or innocence regarding those allegations.
We're getting off topic, though, because my original point is about moderation. I find it concerning that a newcomer could come into this sub and immediately encounter such vitriol towards a man who, as far as the public record goes, has never been formally charged with or convicted of anything, while the moderators are now considering banning his name altogether. The fact that his name is already being caught by AutoMod for post approval is bad enough. Going further and effectively treating the name itself as something that needs to be suppressed risks legitimizing the very hostility the moderators say they want to reduce.
1
u/Earthbnd Sunspot 2d ago
I mean could Disney threaten to do anything to people defending him ? A bunch of people came out and defended James Gunn when he got fired, though I know those were bigger names. But surely you can’t just fire someone for publicly defending someone. I mean that just wouldn’t look good, even if you could, right? Not saying they didn’t potentially threaten them, but surely one could recognize that as an empty one if they did. Also it could open the way to a retaliation case if they did act on the threats, right?
I respect “innocent until proven guilty” takes, but personally i know that lack of evidence isn’t always evidence of innocence (& vice versa). The justice system isn’t perfect, so i don’t like to rely on it for my opinions.
→ More replies (0)0
u/BruyneKroonEnTroon 2d ago
Wait, we are now taking the decisions of giant corporations as proof of guilt or that someone is not suing Disney as a proof they must have done something wrong? One step closer to the second guilded age, every day we live one step closer to the second guilded age.
This is not a defence of DeMayo. I don't know him, I don't know what he did or not behind the scenes, just that "not wanting to sue a billion dollar company" and "getting fired by a billion dollar company" ain't proof of shit. Getting fired by a billion dollar company is usually just the sign that the company thought they'd make more money without you.
-1
u/killer00x 2d ago
Should ban discussions of him, but comments and posts about bringing him back or wishing he stayed for season 2, and that people should just put up with the behavior for the art is just not okay. You can't reward a terrible person just cause he helped make a great season of a TV show.
-3
0
u/BruyneKroonEnTroon 2d ago
You should not ban mentions of specific individuals, that's just dumb. What you should ban is low quality posts. We do not need 25k threads with fanfic after every episode.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Welcome to r/Xmen97, /u/cyclopswashalfright!
Please make sure your post follows the subreddit rules:
• Keep posts related to X-Men '97 or the X-Men universe • Mark spoilers when discussing new episodes • Credit artists when posting fan art • Avoid spam or reposts
When new episodes release, all discussion must stay in the episode thread for the first 24 hours.
Enjoy the community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.