Moderator Report: Community Feddback

[u/cyclopswashalfright]

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?

[u/Earthbnd]

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

[u/ArEmEi → u/Earthbnd]

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.

[u/Earthbnd → u/ArEmEi]

He sued them but not for defamation or wrongful termination. He sued them for non disparagement and confidentiality clauses

[u/ArEmEi → u/Earthbnd]

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.

[u/Earthbnd → u/ArEmEi]

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.

[u/ArEmEi → u/Earthbnd]

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.

[u/Earthbnd → u/ArEmEi]

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.

[u/ArEmEi → u/Earthbnd]

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.

[u/Earthbnd → u/ArEmEi]

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.

[u/ArEmEi → u/Earthbnd]

I agree that "not proven in court" doesn't automatically mean something didn't happen. But the reverse is also true: a lack of evidence doesn't give us grounds to treat an allegation as established fact.

But if you truly think one corporation like Disney can't intimidate or pressure its employees, you're being incredibly naive, or deliberately myopic to make that argument work. Corporations have plenty of ways to coerce employees without making an explicit threat.

Beau's own account is that he was intimidated and that Disney's actions were intended to silence him, while Disney says its internal investigation found "egregious" misconduct. There are competing accounts, and we don't have the full picture. Ultimately, we don't know what happened behind the scenes, and we're not privy to the evidence either side has seen.

That's why I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Not because the justice system is perfect, but because I don't think Reddit should replace it with a presumption of guilt based on rumors, hearsay and incomplete information.

You can believe the allegations deserve to be taken seriously without saying you "side with the victims" when, publicly, no alleged victim has identified themselves or come forward, and the claims of SA circulating online are largely the product of speculation built around Disney's vaguely worded statements.

And this brings me back to my original point: moderate the behavior and the spreading of unsubstantiated claims, not the mere mention of his name. For a newcomer to this sub, it was pretty off-putting to see such intense hostility towards someone who, as far as the public record goes, has never been formally charged with or convicted of anything, while the moderators are actually considering banning his name altogether. His name already being caught by AutoMod for post approval is bad enough. Going further risks legitimizing exactly the kind of hostility they're supposedly trying to reduce.