lol the art that I drew of Anubis beating the shit out of an SS officer got removed from FA 
this was the piece they removed by the way
anyway, I'm sure this'll go well
Interestingly they failed to remove this one
also this one, which isn't really as blunt as the other two but I took it down preemptively anyway
well, east least they're punctual?
If you've been following me for a bit you'd probably know that I'm a mod on a fairly largeish subreddit and Discord, and I kind of fail to see how a policy would solve anything
Moderating a thousands-large worldbuilding server with what is effectively a small volunteer force of ~20 people means you have to be very careful on the way you enforce rules and also how you write them in the first place
Two things our team learned was that:
1. It's important to know why your rules are in place, and what your ultimate end goal is and how that rule would accomplish it
2. To be transparent about said reasoning
1. It's important to know why your rules are in place, and what your ultimate end goal is and how that rule would accomplish it
2. To be transparent about said reasoning
1. feels kind of obvious when I state it like that, but a surprising number of moderation teams appear to forget it. You need to have a concrete idea of why you have a rule in place or don't bother at all
For instance, on our worldbuilding server, we have a rule that states you're not allowed to have a fanfiction/headcanon world based on existing protected IP. No Fallout or Harry Potter fanfic worldbuilding, for instance
Our end goal with that rule is that we believe such projects tend to attract a disproportionate amount of attention, and effectively snuff out "original" works.
It is important to understand the reason we have this rule is NOT because we think fanfic worldbuilding inherently requires less effort or is "lazy" by comparison, but for different reasons entirely.
Original works are disadvantaged already for being unfamiliar, and there are already a multitude of other servers, communities, and forums who would gladly permit your worldbuilding.
This is our rule's rationale.
This is our rule's rationale.
We effectively want to create a sort of safe space in which original content can flourish where normally it gets dominated and drowned out by fan works.
This is our rule's end goal.
This is our rule's end goal.
By knowing our rationale and end goal we know how to enforce it. If you make a project including, say, King Arthur, it's no big deal. It doesn't really cause problems with us attaining our goal, and I can comfortably rationalise why we won't take action on it.
2. is a fair sight simpler but extremely, extremely important. It's understandable to want to keep things on the low down so you avoid unnecessary drama, but a baseline of transparency as to why your rules are the way they are is always healthy.
To use aforementioned fanfiction rule as an example, we previously had a lot of issues whereby we were fairly opaque to why we enforced our rules, including that no-fanfic policy.
Some people criticised us for it, because to them, it seemed as though we simply thought fanfiction was inherently a "lower rung" form of work. And of course they did, what other conclusion would they reach given the (lack of) transparency regarding our doctrine?
Eventually we changed our stance and began to explain exactly why the rule existed in the first place. We have had few publicity problems since regarding fanfiction since.
Which brings me back to this action.
Your stated goal back at the beginning of the year was to remove hate speech, which is commendable. However it's incredibly difficult to understand the thought process behind the blanket no-holds-barred policy.
Your stated goal back at the beginning of the year was to remove hate speech, which is commendable. However it's incredibly difficult to understand the thought process behind the blanket no-holds-barred policy.
If your end goal was to, say, make members of hate groups unwelcome on your platform, then removal of art that condemns said members of hate groups sort of...works against you, to put it mildly.
It gives the message that your goal with the rule wasn't actually to make the community better, but rather as a move to avoid accidentally stirring the pot.
Though if you're reading this I'm sure you can see that's not really being accomplished effectively either.
Though if you're reading this I'm sure you can see that's not really being accomplished effectively either.
Furthermore, this is all kind of just speculation, because there has been a very poor job to explain not just /what/ your rule is but /why/ you are enforcing it the way you are.
If the policy was in place because, say, you got the order from IMVU and you're not permitted to question it, I can be a bit more forgiving to the mod team.
Of course I have no idea whether that's true or not.
Of course I have no idea whether that's true or not.
I don't know why you enforce your rule like that. Your thinking is opaque to me. It is never clarified.
The charitable reading is that the rule is fairly arbitrary and you simply didn't think it through, which is not a good look on its own, mind you.
The worse reading is that you have members on your team with a, shall we say, conflict of interest that's hampering enforcement.
The worse reading is that you have members on your team with a, shall we say, conflict of interest that's hampering enforcement.
And, as a fellow moderator, a word of advice:
Always always work through enforcement with the assumption that your userbase will assume you have the worst intentions unless expressly convinced otherwise.
Always always work through enforcement with the assumption that your userbase will assume you have the worst intentions unless expressly convinced otherwise.
The problem is that ultimately this makes it worse for everyone involved.
Not only do members of hate groups feel reassured that they will meet little resistant, but now your mod team has extra work that accomplishes nothing of the stated goal.
Not only do members of hate groups feel reassured that they will meet little resistant, but now your mod team has extra work that accomplishes nothing of the stated goal.
And not only do you have more work but now also when shit like this happens, you risk a PR kerfuffle, because everyone assumes you have the worst intentions and so any attempt to posture yourself as morally reformed is lost.
I don't WANT to think that your mod team is incompetent, I don't WANT to persecute.
I'm the mod of a Subreddit, for gods' sake, do you think I don't know what it's like when users mob you for thinking you're just evil?
I'm the mod of a Subreddit, for gods' sake, do you think I don't know what it's like when users mob you for thinking you're just evil?
Online moderation is stressful. It really is. Our average mod turnover is under a year. You see some awful shit.
As a fellow mod, dear @furaffinity team, I am reaching out not as an adversary, but someone who is concerned.
If this policy came from someone else whom you can't argue with, it is okay to admit it. Trust me.
If this policy came from someone else whom you can't argue with, it is okay to admit it. Trust me.
If your doctrine is because you are in fear of legal action, or being a magnet for certain problems, that is okay to admit as well.
But believe me when I say, the longer you remain opaque, the more your users have to make assumptions to how you work, the worse it gets. It becomes harder for you to do your job and it becomes harder for your team.
Being transparent in full - communicating with your community not just what your policy is, but why it is written so - is the easiest, most relaxed, surefire thing you can do for the wellbeing of your staff and the public image of your site.
(And I hope that other people reading this who moderate their own communities take this into account as well.)
