r/modnews • u/intortus • Feb 20 '13
New feature: moderator permissions
Having every moderator in a subreddit have access to full moderator powers can be a bit problematic. They can turn rogue and wreak havoc in all sorts of ways that I'd rather not enumerate here. They can also make honest mistakes. What we've needed for some time is more ability to follow the principle of least privilege.
Today we're launching a simple permissions system for moderators that should help with this problem. There are now two kinds of moderators: those with full permissions, and those with limited permissions. Moderators with full permissions are like superusers (or supermods, I suppose), and until today they've been the status quo. Only supermods can invite or remove other moderators, and only supermods can change moderator permissions. Much like before, permission changing and removal can only be done to moderators who are "junior" to you (that is, moderators who joined the team after you).
Limited moderators can only perform tasks and access information according to the permissions granted to them. This allows you to more safely delegate particular roles that require mod powers. The following permissions now exist:
access - manage the lists of approved submitters and banned users. This permission is for the gatekeepers of the subreddit.
config - edit settings, sidebar, css, and images. This permission is for the designers.
flair - manage user flair, link flair, and flair templates.
mail - read and reply to moderator mail. By not granting this permission, you can invite third parties to manage your subreddit's presentation and flair without exposing private information in your modmail to them.
posts - use the approve, remove, spam, distinguish, and nsfw buttons. This permission covers the content moderation duties of being a moderator.
These permissions can be mixed together; moderators need not be confined to only one role. You also have the choice of granting no permissions at all. This yields something like an honorary moderator, who can see traffic stats, moderation logs, and removed posts and comments, but otherwise can't do much else.
Moderator permissions are maintained on the edit moderators page. You can change permissions anytime during a moderator's lifecycle: before inviting, before they accept the invitation, and once they've become a moderator. Everyone who was a moderator at the time this feature rolled out is now a supermod. Everything else is now up to you.
11
u/jaxspider Feb 20 '13
Can you put this portion of your self post in like... every /about/moderator page? I am seriously forgetful.
Limited moderators can only perform tasks and access information according to the permissions granted to them. This allows you to more safely delegate particular roles that require mod powers. The following permissions now exist:
access - manage the lists of approved submitters and banned users. This permission is for the gatekeepers of the subreddit.
config - edit settings, sidebar, css, and images. This permission is for the designers.
flair - manage user flair, link flair, and flair templates.
mail - read and reply to moderator mail. By not granting this permission, you can invite third parties to manage your subreddit's presentation and flair without exposing private information in your modmail to them.
posts - use the approve, remove, spam, distinguish, and nsfw buttons. This permission covers the content moderation duties of being a moderator.
These permissions can be mixed together; moderators need not be confined to only one role. You also have the choice of granting no permissions at all. This yields something like an honorary moderator, who can see traffic stats, moderation logs, and removed posts and comments, but otherwise can't do much else.
Warning: The top mod can also de-supermod themselves if they aren't paying attention.
8
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
Not a bad idea.
If you're not using a touch device, it might help to know that most of this text comes from the tooltips you see if you hover your mouse over permissions in the permission editor.
5
u/jaxspider Feb 20 '13
Yeah I was just playing around with the permissions and I saw this. Excellent work.
19
u/316nuts Feb 20 '13
Will a moderator's access rights be made available for public view?
If a mod is only on board to work on CSS, will they be labeled as such?
Also, if they don't have access to the "Main" modmail, will there be some other way to communicate with each other? An internal modmail that isn't designed to be written to by the public?
20
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
The permissions are listed for everyone to see on the /about/moderators page.
24
u/loves_being_that_guy Feb 20 '13
http://www.reddit.com/r/sdafsdafdsaf/about/moderators
How come it's not possible for me to make myself have permissions again even though im the only mod of this subreddit?
27
Feb 20 '13
Goddamnit lbtg what did you do
18
u/loves_being_that_guy Feb 20 '13
1 hour and I've already fucked up. eh, I guess I'm living up to my username.
27
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
Haha, maybe I should put in a warning before you de-permission yourself. I've re-supermodded you.
→ More replies (7)27
u/316nuts Feb 20 '13
Should top/mod creator perhaps NOT be allowed to change their own permissions to anything but full? In what scenario would a top mod/creator NOT need access to every single moderator command?
→ More replies (6)3
u/Pathogen-David Feb 21 '13
I was wondering if I could do that, but wasn't willing to try it. Thanks, I guess!
→ More replies (1)8
u/Carnal_Insight Feb 20 '13
Hi, I have a question real quick and I hope you could answer it. I have tried posting in /help and other subreddits but gotten nothing.
I have a subreddit /r/rsd and RSDNation is the Mod/Creator. I can't add any more mods though. Whenever I try to add a mod, it briefly says submitting then nothing happens. Positive I have the right name and all that stuff.
Do you know why this is and how I could possibly change it?
7
Feb 20 '13
Which permissions pertain to editing your subreddit's wiki?
5
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
The access permission is required to manage wiki contributors. The config permission allows a mod to change who is allowed to edit a wiki page. It might be better if these fell under a wiki permission.
2
u/catmoon Feb 21 '13
Would an extra wiki permission be easy to implement? Because it would be incredibly useful.
3
u/Haven Feb 21 '13
I agree. I have a mod at r/frugal, and all we have them doing is working on the wiki.
5
u/aryary Feb 20 '13
Which permission would allow the "contest mode" to be enabled or disabled?
5
3
u/Pixelpaws Feb 20 '13
So which types of moderators will show up in the sidebar? This seems like a good change overall but it's potentially confusing to end users who may not realize that a mod doesn't necessarily have full control anymore.
6
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
The mod listing in the sidebar is unchanged. If you click through to the /about/moderators page, you'll see the permissions each one holds.
2
Feb 20 '13
Small issue for me. http://www.reddit.com/r/foxes/about/moderators/
For me, under where it lists the mods, none are showing up.
1
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
There is a layout issue with narrow windows. If you scroll down below the sidebar, do you see any moderators?
→ More replies (1)2
1
2
Feb 25 '13
Will we be able to adjust our own permissions, for example if I am the last mod on the list and I want to opt-out of moderating posts, will I be able to do that myself?
2
u/intortus Feb 25 '13
At first you could, but now you can't. Only higher-up supermods can change your permissions.
3
u/stopscopiesme Feb 20 '13
Where is the feature to limit who gets to invite new mods?
6
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
Only supermods can invite mods.
7
u/stopscopiesme Feb 20 '13
So if I want my mods to have every power BUT the power to invite new mods, is that possible?
7
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
If you check all the checkboxes, then you have a mod with all privileges except for those reserved for supermods (inviting mods, removing mods, and changing permissions).
1
u/Knowltey Feb 20 '13
Is there a way to allow lower mods to also be supermods, or is that only reserved for spot #1.
2
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
Lower mods can be supermods. Mod order only matters when determining which mods can demodded or permission-edited by a supermod.
→ More replies (1)3
2
Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
I would suppose that is access, one second.
Edit: Only a full mod (super mod) can add new mods it seems.
17
u/redtaboo Feb 20 '13
Thanks for this, I admit to being wary of this.. I worry that there may be issues down the road with halfway missing 'supermods' hamstringing moderators doing all the busy work; but I know this was a requested feature so hopefully there won't be many issues and being able to add mods without granting access to everything does have it's merits.
I do have one request. I use a fairly narrow screen which often causes me issues with subreddit CSS. In this case the mod list is now all the way below the sidebar on my moderator pages see here:
http://i.imgur.com/5x0liv7.png
It seems either the space is too wide between mod name and the permission type, or that spacing needs to be made malleable?
→ More replies (3)
40
u/sodypop Feb 20 '13
This is an excellent feature that was long awaited by many, thank you! Hopefully having greater granular control will result in more moderators being promoted around reddit.
Here are some screenshots of what the "moderator tools" sidebar panel looks like for each level of moderator permissions:
5
12
1
9
u/jaxspider Feb 20 '13
FINALLY.
I really wish the config could be broken down some more. Since the CSS in the stylesheet is far more complex then anything in the sidebar. But for now, this is super awesome.
Thank you for your hard work.
21
u/nthitz Feb 20 '13
Thanks intortus, awesome feature I'm sure a lot of communities will benefit from this!
30
u/AerateMark Feb 20 '13
Yes, the drama will surely be fun.
9
u/aladyjewel Feb 20 '13
Eh, it'll just be a logical extension of the same senior/junior drama from before.
→ More replies (1)9
Feb 20 '13
Baladas you need to stop this retardedness asap
28
u/AerateMark Feb 20 '13
What retardedness? I am against these permissions, that's all. I feel like it causes distrust amongst moderators, while I sort of believe moderators all should be a bunch of friends, basically.
→ More replies (1)17
Feb 20 '13
No I mean /r/braveryjerk right now!
I agree that it can cause distrust, but do you understand my point that "janitors" for large subreddits will be a huge benefit?
There are too many pros and cons to this change.
→ More replies (6)
7
u/Measure76 Feb 20 '13
When you change the permission level of a moderator, does it send them a message indicating it?
1
6
u/lilstumpz Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
Despite the complaints, I for one am happy with this addition. We had a moderator in /r/cringe that wanted to "go out in style" by screwing with the sidebar, stylesheet and ban list before promptly removing himself.
4
u/IAmAN00bie Feb 20 '13
Oh, I remember that one! I think that guy's name was /u/ManWithoutModem. A real wildcard that one.
→ More replies (1)3
23
Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
I am a mod in a subreddit where I cannot access modmail now and I am still getting an orangered whenever a message is sent.
Edit: Now I have been given full permission but cannot see that modmail when I click the little orange alien dude, I have to go to the subreddit and then click "moderator mail" to see it.
Please help.
12
10
5
5
1
u/EvolutionTheory Feb 20 '13
When I go to change the permissions on the "Invite" button, changing the default permissions granted to newly invited mods, there is not a save option, and clicking off the menu reverts it back to "Full Permissions". Also, what happens if a limited mod invites another mod with "Full Permissions"? The Invite permissions should be permanently configurable and not default to full permissions.
3
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
If you share (or PM me) details about your browser, I'll look into the missing "save" button.
Limited mods can't invite other mods, but it's totally possible to have limited mods superior to full mods in the list. Those full mods would not be able to change permissions of or remove limited mods superior to them in the list.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/TheReasonableCamel Feb 20 '13
Is who's a supermod determined by the "top mod" or creator of the subreddit?
5
u/Pixelpaws Feb 20 '13
Anyone who's currently a mod is now a "supermod". This doesn't actually change their permissions at all; previously, moderators had full control over the subreddit.
4
u/TheReasonableCamel Feb 20 '13
I guess what I should have said is can moderators higher in the pecking order remove other current mods privileges?
4
u/db2 Feb 20 '13
That's logical. I hope they prevented the reverse though, in some contentious subs with too many mods one of them might get cute and limit everyone above themself otherwise.
3
Feb 21 '13
Does anyone know how to remove a fellow moderator that is below you now when you're a super moderator? I can't seem to figure it out... Someone is about to get cut from one of my subreddits for being inactive but I can't figure out how to demote him now usually it was just under the edit moderators page. I was a moderator before the time of this change so I should be a super moderator don't know why It's not showing me a option now to remove...
2
u/eightNote Feb 21 '13
I wad having a simular problem until I noticed that it forced a nlbunch of names to the bottom of the page with a huge blank space in between
2
11
Feb 20 '13
Well that's just swell. I'm always happy to see new options for mods and this definitely could help in some subreddits (especially larger ones). Can you work on the stuff we've asked for now?
6
u/greenduch Feb 20 '13
To be fair, this has been asked for for quite a while, even if it wasn't top priority for everyone.
17
u/Drunken_Economist Feb 20 '13
I understand that making new features is fun, but can we fix the existing features first?
4
u/AndrewNeo Feb 20 '13
You should get right on that! (Sorry, but as a software developer it's really annoying to hear that)
10
18
u/AerateMark Feb 20 '13
A modmail that doesn't crash browsers would be pretty cool too. This extra drama will be fun too, though.
22
u/alienth Feb 20 '13
There is no known bug that would cause modmail to crash a browser.
Are you perhaps using a custom browser addon?
16
Feb 20 '13
The GoA thread has crashed many browsers, and continues to.
7
→ More replies (31)17
u/AerateMark Feb 20 '13
The never-ending reddit from the RES extension makes it lag, but when a modmail thread gets too long I usually get an AJAX related error (?) or it just freezes/crashes, which is also like that without RES.
13
u/alienth Feb 20 '13
16
u/AerateMark Feb 20 '13
I'm going to bed now, but I'll surely try to find the thread that literally caused me a pop up stating there was something similar to an infinite-loop-freeze, tommorow.
Someone made this extension to clean out extremely large threads automatically, though, so that's a temporary solution. If such a button could be added natively to reddit's code that'd be pretty awesome.
5
u/reseph Feb 20 '13
If someone wants to spam /r/dwo modmail with me and help me test it out, I'm up for that.
9
2
u/greenduch Feb 20 '13
Are you disabling RES?
For me, it's usually RES that crashes my browser when I'm trying to load modmail, not reddit itself. If I use www.np.reddit.com, it breaks RES and I'm able to load modmail without crashing.
5
u/awkisopen Feb 20 '13
A properly documented API would be great.
Also, I haven't checked recently, but is CSS3 supported yet?
Seriously though. API documentation. pleaaaaase.
15
u/spladug Feb 20 '13
Seriously though. API documentation. pleaaaaase.
https://github.com/reddit/reddit/wiki and http://www.reddit.com/dev/api
We also accept patches or wiki edits to improve both of those.
→ More replies (1)6
u/awkisopen Feb 20 '13
I know, and you and others have been beyond helpful in
#reddit-dev. I am extremely grateful for the time you all have taken to help some poor noob with the API.But the official documentation is missing a lot of important information. I believe one of my (several) difficulties with it came when I was developing a bot capable of editing a subreddit's sidebar. This required using the /api/site_admin call, but the official documentation is missing a single parameter that makes the call otherwise impossible. It wasn't until I started looking through a Python reddit API wrapper that I even discovered what it was (I believe
r).This is just one of several examples of poor or outright missing documentation in the reddit API, and anyone can see what I'm talking about just by scrolling past the http://www.reddit.com/dev/api page and noticing the sparse descriptions and gaps. ("fullname of a thing"? sure, that makes sense to me now, but can you imagine how obtuse that seems when you're just starting out?)
I know I'm part of the problem by not contributing patches or edits to the API, but to be frank, I don't feel like I have enough confidence in my knowledge of the API to do so right now. I've always planned to add onto it in the future, when I've done a few more API-related things and I'm more confident in it, but really, anyone except for the people who have written the API in the first place always runs the risk of being inaccurate -- which, in my opinion, is even worse than lacking documentation in the first place. So while, in theory, it's great to leave the API documentation to the community, in practice it creates a pretty decent barrier to people who are interested in using it in the first place, and our expertise isn't going to be on the same level as yours anytime soon.
tl;dr leave documentation to community --> sparse documentation --> fewer people using the API (at least, beyond extremely simplistic usage) --> fewer people capable of accurate documentation --> endless cycle
7
u/spladug Feb 20 '13
I totally agree that we've a long way to go for documentation. However, it's rather unfair to say we're "leaving documentation to the community" though, considering patches like these where I spent a lot of time cleaning up and documenting whole swaths of API endpoints:
https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/7e338253196006a95a8924559857a7b6f9017583
https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/925c9ccc6839906c1ab4ad565d16db7625fc1d7f
The reason I point out that we accept patches is that keeping the site running is our #1 priority and so API documentation can and will fall behind when that takes precedence. Getting external input on what needs to be more clearly explained is really helpful since we're so close to the API.
6
u/awkisopen Feb 20 '13
m'bad, I know that's how that came across and not what I meant to imply. I agree the way it was put was unfair. I was mostly responding to the "we take patches" reply and didn't properly put that in the context of you guys actively working on it too; I was concentrating on making the point that the average user isn't necessarily in the best position to provide accurate documentation.
So in conclusion: oops, sorry
→ More replies (1)0
Feb 20 '13
[deleted]
16
u/canipaybycheck Feb 20 '13
This was very high on my wish list, and it'll be especially useful in the larger subs. I actually viewed the past system as "broken."
8
u/splattypus Feb 20 '13
All I foresee is people being taken advantage of.
The hardest thing now is getting some of those vets at the top of the list to weigh in on issues, or do things around a subreddit, this just secures their places even more.
11
u/canipaybycheck Feb 20 '13
They were completely secure before this change. They could remove anyone that did something they didn't like. Now, they can just restrict their permissions.
The top mods have always had absolute power; this doesn't change anything about them. They're still going to be inactive and have negative effects on their subs and mod teams, but that's the way it's always been.
If anything, this formalizes their position as "supermod". And I can easily see how that could make things worse.
edit: How are people being taken advantage of? The free work as a low-rank mod?
7
u/splattypus Feb 20 '13
Now, they can just restrict their permissions. The top mods have always had absolute power; this doesn't change anything about them. They're still going to be inactive and have negative effects on their subs and mod teams, but that's the way it's always been.
That's the big problem here, and this new thing doesn't do anything to address that. All it does is put us that have been grandfathered in on the same level as them as far as any future mods are concerned.
How are people being taken advantage of? The free work as a low-rank mod?
Yeah, what's stopping us from drafting 5 or 10 people and only assiginging them the ability to remove or approve posts in the /new/. And then never doing anything else. We can say 'well you haven't earned a voice to weigh in on other options, or to do anything else'. It allows mods to divert responsibility to other members unequally, and puts a hell of a lot of faith in the idea that all mods are going to be honorable and responsible in the operations of their subreddit.
This has created more divide, rather than less, and I think that was the real problem to begin with.
→ More replies (2)3
Feb 20 '13
There needs to be a !VoteKick Moderator option.
People who are mods but don't mod shouldn't be mods. They just like the power trip.
4
u/mayonesa Feb 20 '13
I am glad you put in these features. These are much more like a fully-fledged interface design.
This also allows delegation of roles, which will be very helpful for smaller subreddits.
Good work.
Now please work on a solution for downvote mobs, such as double blind IP matching :)
2
u/khsunny786 Feb 20 '13
Thanks intortus! This is a really good feature and will help a lot of people! It's the little things that help make Reddit a better place.
2
u/aphoenix Feb 20 '13
Did you guys have some kind of bet about who could do the coolest shit in the first couple months of the year?
2
2
u/daskoon Feb 21 '13
i was going to troll my fellow mods and remove their permissions. i ended up removing my own and now i can't even see the modmail or anything. DOH!
2
u/jdwpom Feb 21 '13
I think I managed to break something by removing all my permissions as moderator of a subreddit. Thankfully, I'm not the top cat, and (if I can find the guy) I can get him to fix it.
Perhaps you could set this so you can't modify your own permissions, though?
2
u/dmcg12 Feb 21 '13
Intortus, I really like these changes, but there are still issues for moderating and the two that come off the top of my head are
An alert system like the modmail alert but for reported threads and comments
The ability to block a user from contacting modmail.
On the second one, we have had a particular user and his alts contact our modmail non stop for months. It is incredibly annoying particularly because there is nothing we can do about it up to this point. I help moderate a political subreddit so we are particularly vulnerable to users like this that simply harass us until they do something bad enough the admins have to get involved. It would be much simpler to simply block a user from contacting us or make their modmail threads invisible to us
1
u/V2Blast Mar 02 '13
An alert system like the modmail alert but for reported threads and comments
This, at least, you can do using AutoModerator. (We use it in /r/gaming.)
2
u/dmcg12 Mar 02 '13
Yeah deimorz said that elsewhere. Thanks for letting me know. When I have more time I'm going to bring up not with other mods and see what we can use it for
10
u/AerateMark Feb 20 '13
This will definitely not generate drama.
7
7
u/Skuld Feb 20 '13
Disappointing change. Much of reddit is ran despite the inactive moderators' unwatchful eyes.
This is going to result in at least one "locked" subreddit in the long run.
I don't see any benefit. If you don't trust your moderators enough to give them access, they shouldn't be moderators.
8
Feb 20 '13
You are trying solve a human/policy problem with technical means (or in this case, prevent a human/policy problem from becoming worse by restricting technical means), and this isn't the right way to do it even if your intentions are good. Instead, the policy problem should be solved with policy means, and technical tools should be allowed to be developed to their fullest extent.
4
u/autobots Feb 20 '13
If a subreddit gets locked, request control of it and fix it.
7
Feb 20 '13
Nice idea, except we already have subs where mods are frequently inactive, or asleep at the wheel, and because they are "active" in terms of logging in occasionally, control of subreddits is not relinquished.
Since being made a mod on a couple with reasonable numbers (30k-60k), I try to ensure I'm at least having a quick look at modmail and the modqueue every couple of days...
On smaller, growing, subs, mods need to not be awol for months at a time.
5
u/Maxion Feb 20 '13
I completely agree. This will just make the current "power mods" who sit on multiple popular subreddits more powerful. They'll continue to lock-out the adding of new moderators.
5
Feb 20 '13
I disagree, I think separation of duties is good for security, and if a subreddit gets "locked" then the creator wants it like that on purpose and could just make it private anyways or just demod everyone below them.
11
u/Skuld Feb 20 '13
Huge swathes of popular reddits are ran despite whoever managed to hit the create button, some of these people only log in every other week.
If we have to get the permissions of our seniors in order to add a new mod, reddit could be stifled.
I even have an example - /r/comics is currently ran by a batch of mods that I added - it was such a bureaucratic hastle to get them there -I waited a couple of weeks and had several mods there flat out ignore my PMs, until I just added the ones with the highest score/best reference, which then made the other mods wake up.
If I'd been restricted in my ability to add mods that subreddit would still be full of rehosts and spam - and I'm sure the senior mods still don't do anything.
→ More replies (18)
3
u/Illuminatesfolly Feb 20 '13
I don't see any possible way that this could lead to problems with the feudalistic mod system.
2
3
u/splattypus Feb 20 '13
No, this can't horribly backfire....
How about you guys get to working on subreddit shadowbans, modmail bans, and other useful stuff, instead of adding extra submit buttons and complicating(by creating) the hierarchy of modship?
16
u/nthitz Feb 20 '13
reddit is open source. How about you get working on it?!
16
7
Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
I don't think you know what that word means.
Edit: Sorry, I assumed he thought open source meant anyone can mess around with it. You can request something but you can't do anything yourself.
I'm sure there is a way to do these things, the Admins just aren't interested in it right now.
7
u/aladyjewel Feb 20 '13
nthitz has a point. If you can hack python and can get your own dev site up and running, you could fix up features and submit a pull request to reddit on github.
6
Feb 20 '13
Reddit accept pull requests on their code, You even get badge on profile for giving code.
6
7
u/nthitz Feb 20 '13
Not sure what you are getting at. https://github.com/reddit/reddit and there have been plenty of accepted pull requests..
3
u/nthitz Feb 20 '13
Response to your edit: you assumed I thought open source meant something it did not. And you call me out on not knowing what the word means... SMH
30
u/keto4life Feb 20 '13
I know, fuck them for working hard to give us feature-rich content for absolutely free. What a bunch of cunts.
2
6
u/Ooer Feb 20 '13
What? This is a huge benefit to subreddits, big or small. We can add mods without fear of rouge mods defacing subreddits. There is now another option for recruiting new mods rather than trust or cronyism which is fantastic.
Why is it whenever we get a new (amazingly useful) feature there is someone screaming "more more more"?
8
u/splattypus Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
It's not 'more more more', it's that the stuff put out tends not to be stuff that's been asked for. It's superficial stuff.
The most common complaint I hear out of subreddits is about mods with top billing never doing anything, other than occasionally de-modding another user they have an issue with. This gives them 100% autonomy now. So now, a mod that's gone of the deep end, or has a personal beef, or doesn't do anything at all but sit on their ass, or is just tired of it and what's to burn the place down before he leaves, can hinder the other mods ability to counteract anything he might do.
As I see it, the potential for abuse is far greater than any benefit of this. All this does is allow for the making of 'Junior Cadet Mods', to do the grunt work in the trenches, and given them absolutely no voice for feedback or other responsibilities.
5
5
u/Deimorz Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
Changes like my adjustments to the submit buttons are definitely superficial, but I don't see how you can possibly put this change in the same category. This is a major, complex change to functionality, requiring a lot of code and involving a lot of work designing, implementing, testing, etc.
Of course it's going to seem like small, superficial changes are being made more often. It's because they're easy, straightforward to implement, and can be completed quickly. Making major changes to site functionality is difficult, and generally requires a lot of work. reddit is a very large, complex, and active site, and making major changes to it is not simple at all. There are a lot of major enhancements in progress too, but they take time.
→ More replies (1)0
Feb 20 '13
[deleted]
2
u/Ooer Feb 20 '13
I was half tempted to try and play the British card and say we spell it differently, but I will just stick with "I can't spell for shit".
0
Feb 20 '13
[deleted]
9
→ More replies (5)8
Feb 20 '13
Umm, Aerate, can you tell us why me, Qwerty, and Ducky are being ignored in BJ?
9
0
Feb 20 '13
Good this will prevent privilege escalation of those sneaky folks who "just want to add css" and never wind up getting removed as a mod...
5
u/gavin19 Feb 20 '13
Name names.
3
u/aladyjewel Feb 20 '13
That may have happened accidentally to me when people want help and I forget to demod myself..
2
u/gavin19 Feb 20 '13
Yeah, I had to cut a couple loose myself. The little list in the modqueue sidebar came in handy, Andy.
0
Feb 20 '13
BritishEnglishPolice
4
u/canipaybycheck Feb 20 '13
Bep does a ton of work in many subs we co-moderate. Do you have any source to back that up?
→ More replies (1)2
6
1
u/ThePr0nMaster Feb 21 '13
Having every moderator in a subreddit have access to full moderator powers can be a bit problematic. They can turn rogue and wreak havoc in all sorts of ways that I'd rather not enumerate here.
Challenge accepted.
1
1
1
1
1
u/xb4r7x Feb 21 '13
Awesome! Only concern here is whether or not the 'tiered' system with moderators still applies here...
Like, if I started a subreddit last week and made someone else a mod, they can't remove me... I assume they can't demote me to 'limited' either, correct?
Just checking.
1
u/V2Blast Mar 02 '13
Correct. You can only change the permissions of mods "below" you (added after you).
1
u/4merpunk Feb 21 '13
Do all current moderators have full permissions right now then, because if they don't this concerns me. I took over the modship of a small sub with 56 readers and have turned it into over 3500 readers, but it had several inactive mods and still does have one, does this now mean that mod has greater control over my sub that my contributing mods do not? And now do I have to wait until that inactive mod account gives permission to me and my mods as to what access we have?
1
u/V2Blast Mar 02 '13
Awesome! :)
The separation of CSS and other functions, at least, has definitely been needed.
1
1
u/903A Apr 30 '13
Awesome!
I think there also needs to be a moderator chat tool with which moderators can IM each other. Also the modmail system should be made more specific for subreddits, with the added functionality of being able to see if another mod sent a message to someone, so that wouldn't have to send another one by accident because you didn't know about it.
1
u/Zig-Zag Feb 20 '13
I can see some benefit in this, such as somebody wanting to make a small CSS change or something. But beyond that all I see is drama. I already see a lot of these comments on this thread, but I want to voice my concern too because I just don't see this as being a step in the right direction for controlling rogue mods. A rogue senior mod can just as easily turn off all these privileges for other mods and rule alone with an iron fist.
12
u/Deimorz Feb 20 '13
A rogue senior mod could already remove all of the other mods, what's the difference?
5
u/Zig-Zag Feb 20 '13 edited Feb 20 '13
Exactly. There isn't a difference. Maybe I didn't make the point clear enough but nothing has changed in controlling a rogue mod. Sure, if a junior mod makes trouble you demod them. It's happened before in subreddits I moderate and it'll probably happen again. But what happens if that mod is a senior mod(s)? It has happened before in subs I moderate and it might happen again, and there is still nothing anybody can do about it. The only way to solve this problem is admin intervention and we don't need to bother them with mod drama. I only see this change causing more mod drama for admins to deal with.
Yea this helps with CSS mods, and Janitor mods, and other "types" of mods. The only real option for a senior rogue mod is admin intervention. I don't think this should be framed as a fix for that.
2
u/Cozmo23 Feb 20 '13
Maybe that someone you brought on to make a CSS change wont remove a bunch of posts and image cap all of the mod mail.
2
u/Zig-Zag Feb 20 '13
I've already acknowledged that it helps with CSS mods and other types of moderators. I just don't think we should see this as a way of controlling rogue mods.
If you use modmail as a place to have super duper secret conversations, you're doing it wrong.
6
u/intortus Feb 20 '13
I'm not going to name names, but there are some subreddits for which sensitive data in modmail is a legitimately unavoidable issue.
→ More replies (8)10
Feb 20 '13
Like /u/qgyh2? Are you guys going to do something about that?
8
u/Deimorz Feb 20 '13
Do something about what? Him being one of the most-senior mods in a lot of subreddits? That's not the sort of thing we intervene in.
If he's inactive on reddit for 2 months, /r/redditrequest can be used by lower mods to remove him, just like any other subreddit.
11
Feb 20 '13
You'd intervene if he did something serious such as demodding everyone in /r/news or /r/politics, right?
8
u/Skuld Feb 20 '13
For someone posting in a moderator subreddit, you seem to have little understanding of how reddit works: http://blog.reddit.com/2011/09/how-reddit-works.html
→ More replies (8)3
u/Maxion Feb 20 '13
The difference is a rogue senior mod could turn off features such as the adding of new mods. There are many subreddits where the senior power mods don't really want to add any new mods, but also don't really do any moderating.
Since moderators have no accountability for their subreddits this can lead to even less moderation.
→ More replies (1)4
u/aladyjewel Feb 20 '13
Much like before, permission changing and removal can only be done to moderators who are "junior" to you (that is, moderators who joined the team after you).
A rogue senior mod could just as easily have demodded everyone else before this change.
→ More replies (1)
1
Feb 20 '13
Why are you introducing this? What so called problem are you trying to 'fix'?
1
u/viralthoughts Feb 20 '13
5
u/wub_wub Feb 21 '13
How does this help the problem in screenshots you posted?
You posted comment in /r/hiking that the only mod there didn't like, so he removed your comment and banned you. How would new permissions system "solve" this problem? I can't see how this is related unless there is some more info that isn't visible on the images.
2
u/viralthoughts Feb 21 '13
The guy restricted that subreddit and went on to ban mods in /r/privacy thinking they were CIA plants... You tell me that doesn't sound like some mods need less power.
1
Feb 27 '13
I have a potential issue here: Can we make the status of the permissions be visible to mods only? The problem, as i see it, is that someone may get banned or warned by a mod, see that the mod has limited permissions, and then try to appeal to a "higher" mod, or one with more permissions. Modteams need to appear unified (even though we're often not). This potential situation is an example of an avoidable problem.
92
u/One_Giant_Nostril Feb 20 '13
Wow, big changes. And all very welcome. Thanks very much, intortus.
On another note: I always thought it would be cool, as a supermod, to be able to drag 'n' drop mods into new positions in the Moderators window. You know, in order to better stack who is above who, who is below who, instead of the "OK, you leave now but I'll add you again in five minutes, I swear, while I, um, make a little change to the order, mkay?"