Jon Pretty

And I'm not trying to justify any bad decisions. I'm looking at this from the perspective that the economics of maintaining a forum are such that they won't ever have the same judicial standards and due process that we'd like. We can desire it, but shouldn't pretend it exists.

yeah no there's a dozen people for every seat who would jump at the chance. You're making this out like it's some undesirable job that no one wants to do. That just isn't true.

I think the job can't be handed to just anyone, though. There needs to be sufficient trust in the moderator for them to have the authority to do the job, and that can only be established over time. It's also easier to give someone the job of moderator than to take it away.

How would you know, have you recruited for moderators in enough capacity to handle situations like the above in competent manner? Where are the calls for applications? Where is your documented moderator process? It's easy to sit in an armchair and repeat "too hard, can't be done"

it's especially easy to blame nebulous difficulties and human failings when it's a convenient excuse for the continued dysfunction of an organisation which is given considerable power in the community. Which I am saying you are doing right now, just to be clear.

Which organisation are you talking about here? I think the only organisation involved was Reddit...

Anyway, I tried to say this before, but I'm not defending the actions of the moderators. I'm explaining why we shouldn't be surprised that things like this happen. I don't know how Reddit choose moderators.

your rationalization isn't true. I've been running online communities for a couple decades, and every time something like this happens, someone who has no experience in this pops up and starts throwing around exactly the arguments you have been using. They're red herrings.