With the new Reddit policies, when a sub protests and goes private, could re-edit just step in, oust a moderator and switch it back to public?

    • sneakyninjapants
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems they’re spinning it as “If your sub is private you aren’t moderating your community. If you aren’t going to be an active mod, you are on grounds for dismissal” which is asinine, but it seems to be the way they’re playing it.

      • LachlanUnchained@lemmyunchained.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        ive never made my subs private, so if its private, people cant interact in the background? i just thought it meant whatever was happening behind the door, wasnt visible to the public?

        and if thats the case, what, they are arguing, no you need to keep growing the sub, keep working for free to make us money?

        seems like they wouldnt want to pay people to moderate every sub.

        • Otome-chan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          private means that only invited people can use the sub. this is allowed per reddit rules. however, the large subs went private not genuinely, but in protest to prevent people from using it. this falls under sub squatting and vandalism meaning a violation of the moderator code of conduct.

          Theoretically they could invite some people and use the sub as normal just as a private sub, and they’d follow the rules fine. but that’s not what happened.

            • Otome-chan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s under rule 4 “be active and engaged”:

              Camping or sitting on a community is not encouraged. If a community has been empty or unmoderated for a significant amount of time, we will consider banning or restricting the community. If a user requests a takeover of a community that falls under either category, we will consider granting that request but will, in nearly all cases, attempt to reach out to the moderator team first to discuss their intentions for the community.

              source.

              • LachlanUnchained@lemmyunchained.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                A private community is not camped. It is active behind doors.

                Is there any communication from Reddit actually saying that’s the basis of taking over subs? Or is it just speculation?

                • Otome-chan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A private community is not camped. It is active behind doors.

                  Correct, but the protesting subs were not active privately, that’s the point. they were shut down. there wasn’t activity going on in private.

                  Is there any communication from Reddit actually saying that’s the basis of taking over subs? Or is it just speculation?

                  Yes this is what they said in the modmail.

    • Otome-chan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it isn’t in theory. but admins are saying it violates moderator code of conduct by vandalizing a community (which is against reddit rules). Private subs are allowed, but sub squatting and vandalizing are not. theoretically, they could just invite a few people and have a “low activity sub” but still engage as normal while keeping the sub silent. thus no vandalism occurred, nor squatting, but rather just a change in preference of the community (being more private/exclusive).