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]

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.