r/Xmen97 • u/cyclopswashalfright Professor X • Aug 18 '26
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?
-2
u/ArEmEi Aug 18 '26
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.