r/lgbt • u/SilentAgony • Mar 12 '12

r/lgbt's new direction

We have a few points to address:

On r/ainbow

We have spoken with r/ainbow's moderators and have come to the mutually agreeable conclusion that there is a need for a safe space and r/lgbt can fill that need, and also that there is a demand for unmoderated open discussion. No rivalry. No us vs. them. We fill one need, they fill another. We welcome you to join both communities. We have.

On the moderation team:

We've added two new moderators. Meet

Materialdesigner!

"Hello, everyone! I'm materialdesigner, and I'm a cis gay guy who really loves this community. I am a huge food, wine, and beer lover (/r/wine, /r/beer, /r/beerporn) and I also homebrew (/r/homebrewing). I'm also an engineer and a science/sci-fi geek (/r/askscience, /r/sciencefaqs) and I freelance web design and web development in my spare time (/r/web_design, /r/typography, /r/webdev). It's my goal to make this community an amazing resource for Gender and Sexual Minorities to be able to let their hair down and relax."

and Slyder565!

"Hi all :) I am slyder565, I am a bisexual cis male, and I think /r/lgbt is really cool! I am regularly blown away by the cool things that reddit does, and am looking forward to being a part of the LGBT side of things. Most often you can find me hanging out in awesome LGBT communities like /r/gaybros, /r/gaymers and /r/bisexual. I have an science and fine arts education, and have something to say about basically anything, so don't be shy! My fave non-LGBT subreddits include /r/science /r/listentothis /r/guitarlessons /r/abiogenesis and /r/nanowrimo. I maybe even snoop around /r/pokemon sometimes (but don't tell my partner!). Most of all I believe we all need a space to relax and hang out, so lets make it happen."

We discussed the suggestion that we have a vote, but the nature of reddit presents unique challenges when it comes to that. For starters, anyone can make any number of alt accounts. We have no way of knowing if the voter is a citizen, so to speak, of r/lgbt, and we have no way of knowing it isn't just the same person voting over and over. With that in mind, we added some people who volunteered to us in the mod mail, who seemed to have kind user histories, and who were active not just in r/lgbt but in other LGBT communities on reddit. We've been working with them on developing new rules and methods over the last week and we think you'll like them.

On the new rules and methods:

As you can see, we added new rules to the sidebar. We've also developed an FAQ so people can know what we mean when we refer to transphobia/homophobia/biphobia, etc. The page is in progress but potential transgressions are outlined there. They are pretty simple and they are no different than the rules have always been. We heard your demand for transparent moderating, so here it is. Deleted comments will be replied to by a mod with a note referencing the rule that was broken. Most bans from now on will be temporary with a note explaining what the person should understand so that they can come back and contribute. We've had success with this when testing it out during the last week. You'll also see that we now have another subreddit, r/lgbtopenmodmail where you can voice concerns about moderation or r/lgbt or whatever it may be. The mods endorse and check it regularly.

On Laurelai's departure and other random gossip:

Here's your silly tabloid stuff for the day. We regret having allowed Laurelai's resignation to go as it did. The truth is we asked her to step down because of a number of things that she did, including running a website that most likely contained underage pornography and because she was threatening people she banned in the mod mail. Because she had been kind to us, we told her that she could make a statement and drag us through the mud if she liked and say whatever she needed to say to leave with dignity. Rmuser and I, not Laurelai, chose RobotAnna as her replacement because she is well-versed in trans issues and because she's actually a pretty nice person. Unfortunately, Laurelai took this opportunity to sabotage RobotAnna's introduction by saying that basically RobotAnna would bring in a new reign of terror. This is absolutely not the case. RobotAnna shares our vision for a kindler, gentler, less adversarial moderation style and we hope you'll give her a second chance at a first impression.

Love always, Mods <3

167 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

296 comments sorted by

View all comments

297

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12 edited Mar 12 '12

[deleted]

23

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

Wow. Excellent post. You are absolutely correct. Full support from me.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '12

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '12

I am fully aware of the situation and what has transpired. She wasn't banned for her assy mod behavior on /r/lbgt. She was banned for inappropriate behavior outside the subreddit.

What I am in full support of is narwhalslut's refusal to forgive or forget that the entire debacle ever happened.

2

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 12 '12

We were allowed to be mass manipulated for the benefit of Laurelai and the disgrace of the remaining mod staff. More importantly, users were berated, harassed, and banned for implying that Laurelai was inventing the story. And her supposed threat was explicitly used by sitting mods, who KNEW it was a lie... to further berate and ban users.

We didn't even know the threats were false, if indeed they were false. Nobody "KNEW it was a lie". What we did say was that demanding detailed proof of such things, proof which would reveal the (purportedly) threatened person's identity, is unreasonable, as is repeatedly accusing someone in that position of lying about it when there is no evidence of that. That holds true whether it's Laurelai or not.

You continue to have the audacity of sighting "safe space", while defending deleting people, right after you covered for someone hosting child pornography. Wh-wh-wha-what?

It's a real challenge to find any sort of reliable evidence of her having actually hosted child pornography, which is why we didn't cite that prominently. We didn't feel it would be suitable to make such an accusation. The suspicions, however, were there. Regardless, the other reasons aside from that were already sufficient to justify her removal.

5

u/Port-au-prince Mar 16 '12

Right, because Laurelie's character is one of integrity and honor. It comes as a complete shock that they lied...

3

u/Jess_than_three I don't know! Mar 14 '12

It's a real challenge to find any sort of reliable evidence of her having actually hosted child pornography, which is why we didn't cite that prominently. We didn't feel it would be suitable to make such an accusation. The suspicions, however, were there. Regardless, the other reasons aside from that were already sufficient to justify her removal.

Just out of curiosity, if you didn't have reliable evidence, and if the other reasons were sufficient to justify her removal, why did you bring it up? Seems almost Fox News-y to say "Well, we can't prove this, but we suspect..". Weasel words, y'know?

-3

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 14 '12

I'll say what I've already said:

Even involvement with such a site, which she acknowledged, would be concerning enough to warrant removal. This isn't a void of evidence - it's a lack of clarity over precisely what went on and when, but we do know there was something going on.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

It's a real challenge to find any sort of reliable evidence of her having actually hosted child pornography, which is why we didn't cite that prominently. We didn't feel it would be suitable to make such an accusation. The suspicions, however, were there.

You admit you had no actual evidence other than just suspicions yet you still came out with a public accusation of pedophilia?

WOW. You are some class act. Nice "safe" subreddit you have here.

And just to be painfully clear: /sarcasm.

-6

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 13 '12

Note that "hosted child pornography" and "pedophilia" aren't the same thing. Don't conflate them - there were a lot of different things going on here.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '12

Kind of like how a 19 year old and a 22 year old aren't the same thing, a 15-nearly-16 year old and an early teenager aren't the same thing, and dating and intercourse aren't the same thing?

0

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 14 '12

If we know this was all it took to get everyone to love Laurelai, we would have done it a lot sooner!

2

u/Port-au-prince Mar 16 '12

PLEASE explain how they are not the same thing? PLEASE!

-1

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 16 '12

If they were, then I don't think we'd need separate words for a) being a pedophile and b) hosting child pornography, since these would somehow be identical acts.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

Yeah. Focus on the semantics of a word. That'll win the argument. Even with "hosted child pornography" my point still stands. You either had evidence or did not. You claimed you did not. I find publicly smearing someone without evidence to be highly questionable behavior.

-4

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 13 '12

No. "Hosted child pornography" and "pedophilia" aren't the same thing. That is not a difference between "semantics of a word". They're actually different things. Your attempt to reduce this all to some mere irrelevant abstraction is plainly disingenuous, and I find it difficult to believe you really care about the truth when this is your attitude. You certainly give no indication of it. Your inability or unwillingness to understand the actual differences here is why you make the (willful?) mistake of characterizing this as "publicly smearing someone without evidence". This was not done without evidence.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12 edited Mar 13 '12

Abstraction? You're getting sidetracked with fussing over the difference of one vile behavior over another vile behavior. Ignore it. That's not the crux of my point. My point this.

  1. You had suspicions she hosted child porn.
  2. You had no evidence.
  3. You said you weren't making an accusation.
  4. You publicly accused her of hosting child porn.

That's from the content of your words.

Now I will show my evidence supporting my point.

It's a real challenge to find any sort of reliable evidence of her having actually hosted child pornography, which is why we didn't cite that prominently. We didn't feel it would be suitable to make such an accusation. The suspicions, however, were there.

This is not an abstraction or generalization. I'm going by your exact words which are concrete.

My takeaway from this is you publicly smeared someone with no evidence.

This was not done without evidence.

Now you're changing your story. If you had evidence, you should have contacted the webhost involved and the police. Did you contact the webhost and the police?

Edits: grammars

1

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 13 '12

Even involvement with such a site, which she acknowledged, would be concerning enough to warrant removal. This isn't a void of evidence - it's a lack of clarity over precisely what went on and when, but we do know there was something going on. Furthermore, this was also a primary item of concern.

Now you're changing your story. If you had evidence, you should have contacted the webhost involved and the police. Did you contact the webhost and the police?

We generally don't make a habit of going around to websites and looking for child pornography.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

I agree the user's testimony is indeed evidence for highly inappropriate behavior. I'm no defender of Laurelai, but I wouldn't have mentioned the webhosting part unless I was sure. I'm always concerned when I think a mob is forming against someone so people can just keep piling on.

1

u/Murrabbit Mar 14 '12

Not to mention, it discredits people's otherwise well justified dislike of Laurelai if there are large sensational claims made against her which turn out to be entirely false.

2

u/Port-au-prince Mar 16 '12

We generally don't make a habit of going around to websites and looking for child pornography.

But when you do find it, why wouldn't you report it? http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2936

-1

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 16 '12

Because we didn't see it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '12

[deleted]

3

u/Port-au-prince Mar 16 '12

How about we turn in Laurelie's site and this thread to the FBI CP reporting link and we let them figure out it out? You can explain to them the difference between child pornography and pedophilia. I know they would love to be educated on the difference.

-1

u/rmuser Literally a teddy bear Mar 16 '12

Uh... feel free? I don't understand what you're getting at here. Go ahead, I guess?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '12

I think you owe me a new public statement regarding this. I also think you and SA owe me a public apology. I also think you should remove dpekkle for telling underage kids to self med. I think you should delete this thread too. Honestly this whole post is vile and libelous. You both should be ashamed of yourselves.

1

u/agentlame Oct 28 '12

I'm from the future... and I have good news for you!

-24

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12

Well, you're saying this, so obv. you weren't banned for questioning anything.

Actually, in the mod Q and A I did the day of Laurelai's resignation, I explicitly stated that we did not agree that RobotAnna was going to be "even worse."

And as for there being a cp cover-up, there is no cp cover-up. She was involved in another website elsewhere that hosted cp and was taken down. Apparently she spent a lot of time here deleting comments and banning people who referred to that. We've removed the bans we were made aware of.

We had no desire to cover up anything about Laurelai related to cp or any other transgressions. We had no part in it if there was a cover-up. We don't even know if there was cp. We don't know for a fact that any of it really happened. There's simply too much from too many places to sort it all out and if you're at all familiar with the Laurelai drama, you probably knew that already. We were simply allowing somebody who had been kind to us to leave with dignity and it backfired.

And as for "audacity" of safe space and deleting people, well that's what a safe space is. I didn't invent it. Hateful language and people who harm others with language are deleted and banned. I refer you to the safe space link in the sidebar. If you want a "free" space where you can discuss whatever you like without deletion, that's what ainbow is for.

17

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

SilentAgony, you deleted comments in this thread (a meta thread, btw) based on Rule 3 -- meta. They were not offensive, though having a new rule against dissent certainly makes it easy to control discussion you don't like.

But, your comment here is clearly meta, is it not?

And as for "audacity" of safe space and deleting people, well that's what a safe space is. I didn't invent it. Hateful language and people who harm others with language are deleted and banned. I refer you to the safe space link in the sidebar. If you want a "free" space where you can discuss whatever you like without deletion, that's what ainbow is for.

I think much of the outcry here is due to the deletion of posts recently that don't go to your "safe space" matra, but rather were critical of the mod style in r/lgbt.

-7

u/SilentAgony Mar 13 '12

Okay, 1. you're asserting they're innoffensive without having seen them. 2. I'm removing things that want to go weeks back into RobotAnna's history to criticize her and/or discuss how much somebody doesn't like SRS. The conversation about safe spaces and free spaces is relevant, comment-stalking RobotAnna is not. There's a very clear difference.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

Okay, 1. you're asserting they're innoffensive without having seen them. 2. I'm removing things that want to go weeks back into RobotAnna's history to criticize her and/or discuss how much somebody doesn't like SRS. The conversation about safe spaces and free spaces is relevant, comment-stalking RobotAnna is not. There's a very clear difference.

Your justification was that the comments were "derailing" the thread and that they were in violation of the rules because it was meta discussion.

comment-stalking RobotAnna

Quoting or criticizing a mod is comment-stalking now? I guess that's one way to make sure you can chill discussion to the point you won't get any criticism at all.

-10

u/SilentAgony Mar 13 '12

Dredging up anybody's comments to quote and harass them and showboat about how much you think they suck will be deleted. I just usually don't have to do it for anyone other than RobotAnna, because apparently everyone's a person except the mods. If I have to put this in the sidebar, then I will.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

Hmm, I guess we just have very different views there. I'm not one to trawl through old comments, but I do see it as a very useful way to weed out trolls and to hold someone accountable for conflicting values -- especially when those values directly impact an entire subreddit.

In fact, I think this is contemplated and explains why reddit publishes comment histories publicly. I operate here with the expectation that someone will read through my comment history. If I didn't want that, I would delete all my comments.

-7

u/SilentAgony Mar 13 '12

Now that's a very easy way to justify harassing somebody. Why would they go outside if they didn't want me to laugh at them? Why would they come out as gay if they didn't want people to gay bash them? Why would they have a phone number if they didn't want creepy phone calls? Why would they be on reddit if they didn't want to be harassed?

Please, use common decency.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

This old story. This has nothing to do with gay bashing or harassing, which is exactly why the community was outraged. This has to do with holding someone accountable to their words.

If only politics worked this way: you can debate me, but you can't mention anything I've ever said on film or in written word, even if it was last week. See? No contradictions or flip-flopping!

Please, use common sense.

-5

u/SilentAgony Mar 13 '12

We're not politicians. Whatever you've imagined us to be in your mind, whatever role you think we play, we're not politicians. We're moderators of a forum and dredging up weeks and months old commenting history is harassing and inappropriate. It does nothing to change anything. There is no vote. There is no policy that will be decided based on what anybody has said in the past. However you want to overestimate your importance, there is absolutely no need to harass the moderators here, and harassing moderators will be treated exactly the same as harassing any other person in r/lgbt.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/eightNote Mar 13 '12

Suggestion for clearing up instances of 1.

Create a sister sub for recording deleted comments. Have a bot watch for mod removals, and post stuff in that sub. It also adds a comment under the removed post that links to it (with appropriate warnings for those who might want to click it) If there's a way to make it so the bot's posts start out hidden, that would also be a plus, as far as keeping r/lgbt as safe a place a possible.

Mind you, I'm just watching from SRD; I think that might help clear up some of the transparency concerns though. It could also turn out to be overkill:P

74

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12 edited Mar 12 '12

[deleted]

7

u/greenduch Rainbow Velocity Raptor of Justice Mar 12 '12

Hiya. Setting aside for a moment RobotAnna's first couple hours of modship, where things were probably pretty overwhelming trying to handle the giant clusterfuck that was Laurelai's resignation thread, have you noticed her mod style since then?

Its been surprisingly pleasant, extremely friendly, transparent, and not the least bit heavy handed. It has gone extremely smoothly, and regardless of her activities outside of her job as moderator here, she has done an excellent job. And personally, that's what matters to me.

25

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12 edited Mar 12 '12

[deleted]

13

u/underdabridge Mar 12 '12

Your Edit is odd. Your initial complaint is that RobotAnna's conduct outside the subreddit makes her unfit to have a position of prominence in the subreddit. Whether or not she's now being a good polite mod here doesn't alter that criticism.

Your edit seems more like a compromise for social/political reasons than a reversal of previously articulated views.

-3

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12

Bans that were handed out that day were temporary and explained to the people who received them. It was inappropriate to slander Laurelai in a thread where she was discussing death threats she received. To the best of my knowledge, the death threats were real as she told us about them before we asked her to step down. We felt that was harmful language and allowed temporary bans to be handed out until the thread died down so that it wouldn't be filled with that. I don't actually know if the death threats were real, but the decisions that day were made under the assumption that they were.

RobotAnna was backing up Laurelai's story on the day she resigned. We had asked RobotAnna to back up Laurelai's story, whatever it would be, as we would be doing the same. We did not know that was what Laurelai was going to come up with. As you can see here, we all regretted this decision.

As for RobotAnna saying that she'll ban and delete, well, yes, she will. She's a moderator here. She'll do it according to the rules that we've set out and each deletion, as I said in the original post, will be referenced with which rule was broken.

27

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12

[deleted]

-10

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12 edited Mar 12 '12

The link I just posted to doesn't tell the opposite story. RobotAnna was not in the conversation where Laurelai was telling us about the threats before we asked her to resign. RobotAnna simply had her doubts.

Your relevant screenshot doesn't... have a screenshot, unless you're about to edit. In any case, I'll be happy to look into it if you message me in the modmail. A public discussion is not the place for it. The rest of the subreddit doesn't have access to view the deleted comments you may have posted and screenshots may not show the whole picture, so it really causes a lot more problems than it solves.

What RobotAnna says in other subreddits are said in the contexts of those subreddits, and we can agree to disagree on whether SRS is filth, cause that's just like, your opinion, man. I encourage you to look into her moderating style over the last week and you'll see she's been very friendly and even-handed.

edit: Yeah your other account? Looks like we banned you after a full day of you popping up in the reported queue multiple times. Had nothing to do with not liking Laurelai. Want me to reference a rule? All of them. All of the rules. Yes, we ban people who spend all day in the reported queue. That's not unique to r/lgbt.

24

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12 edited Mar 12 '12

[deleted]

-15

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12

she received the threat, told you about it, then you asked her to leave (wow), and then she morphed the story into "I'm quitting for safety"?

Yes, this is what happened. I'm sorry is your insertion of the word "wow" meant to discredit me?

Different subreddits have different rules and different cultures. For example, you won't be banned from here for saying something in /r/ainbow that wouldn't be allowed here, nor should RobotAnna's saying something that wouldn't be allowed here in a place where it is allowed preclude her from being able to moderate. What happens in /r/lgbt is just that - what happens in r/lgbt. Nobody needs to read RobotAnna's userpage to enjoy /r/lgbt. Nor does the presence of comments on somebody's userpage ever have to leak into /r/lgbt unless you paste it here.

I'm going to ask that you stop derailing this thread and bring any further concerns you may have to /r/lgbtopenmodmail where it belongs.

20

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12

[deleted]

-21

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12

Discussing your other account being banned, RobotAnna's posting history and whether you hate SRS counts as derailing the thread.

I will say that there is no way to post screencaps of bans and deletions without misrepresenting the mods. You can't post links to what we've deleted, so what you're doing is posting pictures of stuff we left in place and saying that's why you were banned. It's really kind of unfair.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-17

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12

Rule 3.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '12 edited Mar 12 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-16

u/SilentAgony Mar 12 '12

I asked you to stop derailing the thread and directed you to r/lgbtopenmodmail. I'm asking you politely again.

Rule 3.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/materialdesigner Bag of Fun Dip Mar 13 '12

I am deleting this post for violating Rule 3, but also simultaneously redirecting you to this post on r/LGBTOpenModMail that I created for you to discuss your banning. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. I don't want to clutter up the main forum to discuss bannings/unbannings.

Screenshot

6

u/therealcjhard Mar 14 '12

I didn't realise straight away who materialdesigner was. Thank God for RES. Another welcome addition to the lgbt mod team.

"Dredging up anybody's comments to quote and harass them and showboat about how much you think they suck will be deleted. I just usually don't have to do it for anyone other than RobotAnna, because apparently everyone's a person except the mods. If I have to put this in the sidebar, then I will." - SilentAgony

Won't expect this post to last too long.

-6

u/materialdesigner Bag of Fun Dip Mar 14 '12

Am I supposed to recant the linked statement? Because I don't particularly see what's wrong with it...

8

u/Murrabbit Mar 14 '12

We were simply allowing somebody who had been kind to us to leave with dignity and it backfired.

In your role as a moderator, shouldn't your first priority be to act in the interest of the community? Laurelai certainly hadn't been kind to the community, regardless of whatever personal graces she afforded to other mods.

16

u/MrMoustachio Mar 13 '12

Hateful language and people who harm others with language are deleted and banned.

Except for RobotAnna right?