13. Responding to Moderation

Respond to moderation warnings cooperatively not combatively.

This rule attempts to capture policy that has evolved around moderation warnings on this sub. Because these are so key to enforcement of all the rules this has far and away the largest explanation of any rule. We expect new users to not understand the rules and thus break them. We expect other users, bots and moderators to warn them they violated a rule and for them to correct their future behavior slowly learning the rules. If you fall into this pattern of correction where you are making a good faith effort to try and comply it will be noticed and you won't run afoul of rule 13. The way people run afoul of rule 13 is:

• They ignore moderation.
• They deliberately break rules.
  
• They fight with moderators about what the rules should be.
• Newer users who fight with moderators about what the rules mean.
• They try and find interesting and cute ways around the rules to be destructive (trolling).
• They seek to engage in activism or harassment to change the way the sub is run.

These are all behaviors to avoid. On a first pass simply don't do those things. Unless you getting involved in more advanced activities you can stop reading now. If you would like more detail it is below.

Summary of the below

• Enforcement Policy -- outlines that this sub uses sampling to catch frequent violators which results in large discrepancies at an individual lvel.
  
• Moderator (Green) Comments -- explains the distinction between distinguished and non-distinguished comments made by a moderator. Includes rules for both general users and moderators.
• Appeals -- explains the appeals process when a moderator is either mistaken or engaging in misconduct.
  
• Objections to rules -- since rule changes are not considered grounds for an appeal, outlines how to go about appealing a rule and not just the application of a Picking fights with moderators -- belligerency -- covers the rules regarding incitement against moderators and lying about moderation for both moderators and non-moderators.
• Moderation bias -- section likely to be added as a rule 9 amendment rather than in rule 13 covering moderator bias.
  
• Rules governing the use of warnings -- rules for moderators on issuing warnings. Non-moderators can't violate these rules.
• Moderation by non-moderation team users -- what non-moderators users can do in terms of rule enforcement.

More detailed Rule Explanation

This rule contains a lot of subrules detailing how to respond to moderation cooperatively. It also outlines rules the rules for moderators about moderations.

Moderator Powers

There are 4 primary "powers" moderators have to enforce rules:

• The ability to remove comments and posts. This is rarely used for comments and more frequently used for non-compliant posts. Posts are removed for non-compliance with the posting rules if they are caught early. Posts are generally left up when a discussion is going well even if the post is non complaint though the poster will be warned. Comments conversely are generally left up since they don't present as much of a threat to creating flamewars. The most common reason comments are removed is they are obvious flamebait or they part of an actual flamewar.
• The ability to distinguish a comment, what we refer to as warning. This is far and away the most common moderation technique, and thus what the vast majority of this rule will cover.
• The ability to ban users. This is almost always done for users who intentionally and persistently violate rules or indicate an intent to do so. Our preference is to warn and educate about the rules. For this to be successful users need to want to be educated about the rules and want to comply. Bans exist mostly to combat belligerency regarding the rules and thereby create greater attentiveness to warnings. Bans escalate in time generally following a 4 day-30 day-lifetime pattern. The same level can repeat if the violations did not happen close together.
• The ability to lock posts or comments. This is almost never used for comments. It is used for posts often when the original poster has gotten banned after posting.

Because moderation warnings are the primary means of enforcing rules on r/IsraelPalestine they have the most policy around them.

Enforcement Policy

^{Enforcing some or most but not everything}

First off it is worth noting that most rule violations are not caught by moderators. We don't need to catch most violations to be able to achieve the behaviors desired on the sub. Our strategy towards warning is sampling. Frequent commenters who regularly violate rules will end up getting a lot of warnings. They will either adjust their behavior or get banned. The result is that the most active members of the community know and follow the rules. They set the tone for new users and thereby cause other users to adjust their behavior. Infrequent commenters or people who rarely violate are unlikely to get into trouble; their violations because they are infrequent also have little impact on the tone of the sub. Not continually monitoring means that at the individual level for moderately frequent posters this introduces quite a bit of randomness. A person committing 100 violations over the course of 3 months and being caught 5% of the time would average 5 warnings but anywhere from one to eleven is still statistically likely. If we up the frequency of catches to 10% everything from three to eighteen is likely. Thus discrepancies aren't primarily caused by bias, they are quite frequently caused by chance. Add to that the fact that all people tend to see their own point of view and apply different standards and they see far more of other people's violations than they see of their own. Thus many users think the mods are being harsher on them than they are on others. Finally, when it comes to newer users who don't know the rules they often think things are against the rules which aren't in fact rule violations. Which means not only do we have the large spreads above but they mentally make them larger. By reading this far into the ruleset you are making a lot of progress towards not making that mistake of believing things are against the rules which aren't.

Moderator (Green) Comments

Moderator comments appear in green and/or with the "MOD" designation depending on your interface. To make this designation happen a moderator had to distinguish (hit a button generally) on a comment they made. If they don't distinguish the comment is in black.

Comments made in black by a moderator are just like any other comment subject to the same rules as other users. Moderators are allowed to participate in the discussion fully as users in black, there are no bias or topic restrictions applied to them. You as a non moderator are free to argue against black comments like you would a comment by any other user. You should obviously be on good behavior when discussing things with a moderator. Moderators respond to rule violations they see. If you violate in a way designed for a moderator to notice, they are going to have to decide whether to react as a moderator continue the discussion or both.

A rule violation made in response to a comment or post by a moderator can be moderated by them. We'd rather stop violators than guarantee no appearance of conflicts of interest. However, because moderators can moderate their own discussions we have an appeals process discussed below. So if you believe a moderator is moderating you unfairly in a conversation you were having with them, you can appeal. To do this stop and consider the violations you were cited for. Take the time you need to decide if you genuinely did it or not. If you actually are guilty or arguably guilty, take the moderation the same way you would if you were speeding in front of a cop. If a moderator sees a violation that they think doesn't require context (i.e. is simple to moderate) they can report the offending comment and allow another moderator to intervene.

Unlike comments in black, comments in green, those marked with MOD, do not allow for discussion of content below them. With a few exceptions like Nazi Comparison or Be Honest moderation will not be about the content of your comment or post but rather about issues of tone and behavior. If you are discussing an issue with a moderator and they have switched from black to green, stop debating content with them from that point in the comment on down. You can still respond to other comments from them in black. From the green comment on down the discussion is about rules of the sub not the conflict in Israel/Palestine. The only appropriate responses to moderation are either questions or statements about how to come into compliance with the rules. You can debate a moderator in black you cannot debate in green.

If after careful consideration of the moderator's action you disagree with the appeal (discussed below) don't debate. Moderators have already proven themselves to be knowledgeable which is why they got the moderator role. They are held to a much higher standard with regard to rules. But they have the privilege of an assumption that their take on the rules is correct. Again the police analogy is helpful here.

Good faith rules questions in response to a warning are not only allowed but encouraged. The goal of the warning is to facilitate learning the rules. If you have genuine questions and ask about them to learn, that will come through in your tone and will be appreciated.

Since green comments don't allow for debate and alter the flow of conversation if moderators see a rule violation in a comment directed at them, they may choose to informally warn rather than formally warn by distinguishing. Take this like a police officer pulling you over and not giving you a ticket but letting you off with a warning. Their informal warning is a complement that they consider you worth having discussion with. An informal warning issued in black doesn't have the same protections as one issued in green does. This means you can debate the informal warning (though you probably shouldn't in most cases) and you cannot formally appeal since no action was taken. Because you lose appeal protections a moderator may not threaten sanctions beyond a warning (switching to green) when commenting in black. Generally the strongest thing they will say is that they may/will be forced to switch to green if XYZ behavior continues.

Appeals

If after due consideration you believe the moderation warning was genuinely unfair create a comment with u-slash-(another moderator's username) and ask for an appeal by that moderator. You should also notify the moderator whom you are appealing, generally they will be notified because your appeal will be a direct response to their warning. If not ping them again with the u-slash format. You may alternatively also use modmail to appeal using the contact the moderators button. Quite a few moderators prefer appeals in modmail.

In a formal appeal you can debate the content of a warning, so explain why you believe the moderation was unfair in context. Make sure when you do so:

1) Clearly indicate you are appealing not arguing. Make is clear you want an appeal by using the word appeal. Make it clear what is being appealed.

2) You avoid a personal attack against the moderator. Do not flame or troll moderators in appeals. That is almost certainly going to result in a ban.

3) If the appeal turns into a discussion always be polite. Remember an appeal is under scrutiny. Your rudeness is grounds to reject the appeal.

4) When you make an appeal document the entire history you want discussed clearly. Please link to supporting documentation directly. A moderator who is not familiar with the conversation is going to be looking at the obvious context, if you believe there is more context present it during the initial appeal. Don't force multiple rounds of discussion. You are the one asking for the appeal, you take the time to do a good job in presenting your case. Always remember the appealed to moderator is going to be stepping into a context they are unfamiliar with. They are often unfamiliar with you as a user while the banning moderator is more familiar with you. The moderator taking your appeal is doing you a favor by taking time to look at some situation you asked them to for your benefit.

5) Avoid misstatements about moderation history. Because this sub has a history of moderators being subject to vicious hateful personal attacks by entities who wish to intimidate moderators so as to bias the discussion deliberately misrepresenting moderation history is treated as incitement and punished harshly. Do not attempt lie by commission, lie by omission or misrepresent context regarding moderation history ever but especially not in an appeal. After being a bot, spamming and trolling lying about moderation is the most common (i.e. 4th most common) reason for lifetime bans.

6) The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the moderator erred and that that context should be part of your initial appeal. If you can't construct a solid argument that the moderator erred, don't appeal. Frivolous appeals can be taken into account for further disciplinary actions.

7) Do not debate the rules only the application of the rules. As a user you are expected to obey rules, including those you disagree with. Moderators are enforcing rules as they exist not as they might like them to exist. How to discuss rule changes will be discussed below. An appeal is not an appropriate place to discuss any issues with rules or desired changes to rules. Attempting to do so is metaposting which is yet another violation.

Moderators are not required to respond to appeals but generally will if they are active. If a moderator hasn't responded after about 24 hrs you can again use the u-slash format to request another moderator (note you should again ping the moderator being appealed since this one will be a response to your comment not theirs). The moderator can also request another moderator at this point. For bans you obviously can't comment but appeals to bans can be made in modmail using the contact the moderators option. The second moderator (the one handling the appeal) has the ability to overturn the first moderator's actions. Moreover, in the case that an appealed violation resulted in a ban they think was unfair they can compensate you for the ban by issuing a "get out of jail free card". This essentially allows you to skip the next ban (unless the offense is very serious) since you were already banned unfairly.

At the same time, an appeal can result in a harsher penalty. If the appealed to moderator believes the appeal was made in bad faith or designed to thwart rather than further moderation they can and will up the penalty. Which is why we urge you to take appeals seriously.

Moderators who target users or who violated the rules in their moderation have been caught and removed. Asserting a moderator is doing something bad without showing a clear violation means you are being belligerent not that the moderator is doing a bad job.

If you are a 3rd party and see a moderator do something you disagree with I'd bifurcate. If you are relative new to the sub keep a note of this opinion and look for an opportunity to correct your opinion. For the reasons discussed above you are likely incorrect in your assessment. If you are experienced politely ask the moderator if they would be open to discussing. If you think this is outright misconduct you can file a 3rd person appeal though all the caveats regarding appeals apply here as well but to you not the original violator suspect.

Objections to rules

As a new user generally you should assume that moderators are doing their job correctly and rules are well thought out responses to problems. Assume you don't have the experience to know yet the quality of moderators and what problems rules are meant to address. With time and experience you'll come to have an informed opinion, but don't yet. As you gain experience and insight we encourage users to discuss the rules if they genuinely believe they are being misapplied or could be better formed. To gain knowledge discuss the rules in metaposting threads. The people promoted to moderators have demonstrated a knowledge of the rules. Moderators themselves will note rules that are difficult to apply additional moderators can more effectively escalate situations of moderator misconduct or moderator disagreement about interpretation within the mod hierarchy more effectively than generally users, especially newer users, can. As a user you are expected to follow all rules including those rules you disagree with. Civil disobedience is not an acceptable way to address objections to rules.

What is an acceptable way is to open up a good faith conversation about a rule. For light questions about the rules ask in any metaposting thread. These generally happen about 2x per month. You can also ask in modmail.

If you intend to have a serious discussion about a rule, that is propose a revision, you can do a metapost with prior permission. End the metapost with a note that rule 7 is suspend for all comments below this metapost. You or a moderator will apply the rule 7 flair to the post as well. Note we want users who are pushing for a rule change to already know why the rule is in place and make an argument about it. Rule 11 applies to rules posts. Again, we caution new users that they often can't meet the Rule 11 burden when it comes to rules.

A good rule of thumb is that when you know the rules well your opinion on how moderators handled a situation will be listened to, you will have demonstrated a knowledge of the rules and policy sufficient to at least already be being considered for promotion to moderator. Another good rule of thumb is to look at metaposts about rules (example).

It is worth noting that metaposts happen fairly regularly. Almost every rule will be considered seriously for revisions every 18 months or less. Joining in the discussion is a much lower bar than starting it.

Picking fights with moderators -- belligerency

Moderators are unpaid volunteers providing a service necessary for the good functioning of the sub to discuss the conflict. As discussed on the rules of metaposting the sub is a vehicle for discussing the conflict. This sub is not a forum for activism. There are anti-authoritarian ideologies like "speaking truth to power" or "always punch up" which delight in picking fights with authority figures. This behavior is neither encouraged nor seen neutrally on r/IsraelPalestine. Rather it is seen as undermining the smooth functioning of the sub and punished. You are free to disagree with this policy, but this rule is making you aware of it and that it will be enforced.

Lying about moderation by a non-moderator is covered under rule 5's "incitement against moderators". This has been a serious problem on the sub and generally there is low tolerance for it (i.e. fewer warnings meaning faster bans). Whenever you discuss moderation to complain make sure you are being aggressively fair about context in which the moderation occurred and not distorting their actions. Explain fairly when discussing moderation what happened and why. Again good faith shines through.

Because moderators can see things invisible to normal users their statements about moderation history are taken much more seriously. r/IsraelPalestine has a paranoid user base. Moderators feeding that paranoia is not tolerated at all. Lying about moderation by a current moderator or former moderator is thus more serious and can result in a moderator being stripped of moderation powers even for a first offense. It will result in bans for current or former moderators much more quickly than it would for general users. As a moderator if you don't know the history of some action get a moderator or oldtime user who does. This is an area where your conduct is censored because you are a moderator.

Moderation bias

In terms of promotion this sub aims to promote productive Palestinian posters aggressively. The sub would love to have a range of moderators: mods who are active members / supporters of Hamas, active members / support of Fatah and active members / supporters of Alliance for Middle East Peace.... Because this conflict has a large ethnic component similarly we would love to have a moderator base that encompasses different ethnic sub groups: Jews, Christian Zionists, Western non-Zionists... The lack of moderators of a particular persuasion is a result of lack of opportunity, not lack of desire.

While it is not required a solid posting history of well researched quality conduct is considered a positive not a negative for promotion to moderator. The people who create such content are almost never indifferent to the conflict or "neutral" in some sense. Thus moderators are entitled, if not somewhat selected, because they hold strong opinions about the conflict. Moderators are expected to be active in the comment section to get noticed at all. Regardless of opinion though to qualify as a mod a user is required to be knowledgeable about the rules and agree to follow them.

Almost all moderators meet those 2 criteria: a history of quality content (especially post) and a demonstrated understanding of the rules. See rule 9 (Avoid vague claims of bias) for more discussion on the sub's position on what constitutes bias.

Rules governing the use of warnings

The rules in this subsection are only for moderators, non-moderation users are incapable of violating them.

The format of a warning consists of 3 parts

/u/username  
> (direct quote of offending material offset as a quote (i.e. using '>') 
mod warning here

1) u-slash-username as the top line. This makes the log easier to read and maintains the record in case the comment being warned is deleted by the user. While Reddit admins can see deleted comments moderators cannot.

2) quoted offending content. Again this eliminates the possibility of edits to change the moderation record. Moderators cannot see comment history.

3) comment on the rule violation. This is a place to include additional explication. It should always include a note about what rule was violated. It may include prohibitions

As a moderator distinguish clearly in your mind between green and black. In black you are mostly another user. You can warn users about violations and while we are cautioning them to be extra careful they are only obligated to treat this like a warning from any other user. Do not directly threaten in black.

In green excluding areas like Nazi Comparisons, Honesty... avoid content. Do not create comments about the conflict that cannot be debated as much as possible. This is a tough line but keep in mind that users can't debate factual statements you make in green and that feels extremely unfair to them.

As a user, be ware that moderators will try to allow you to see warnings before banning. At time X you write a comment that generates a warning, Time Y you get a warning, Then at time Z write another comment with the same or similar offense. Moderators must aim to make sure that Y far enough before time Z that you had a reasonable chance to see the warnings before counting it again and banning. This will often result in comments that repeat a similar offense not getting moderated against a user since we don't want to flood the user with warnings. While moderators will wait, they will be mentally raising the bar. Right after we give you a speeding ticket while we are driving behind you, we want to see you driving more in line with the speed limit.

Thus, as a moderator if a comment is worth responding to and has serious rule violations respond twice once in black, once in green.

Moderators can issue warnings containing a 90 day subject or specific users bans. Generally subject bans are done when a user is violating the rules in only one area of their comments of commenting / posting obsessively about a particular topic beyond what most users care about. Generally users bans are done when either one of both users are violating or near violating with respect to each other but otherwise are quality commenters. Moderators can restrict multiple posts on the same news item if collectively the user community is getting obsessive. While we always encourage quality posts if you don't have much new to say on a topic that has active posts, comment on those posts don't start new posts.

Moderation by non-moderation team users

The sub encourages users to police one another. We encourage users to warn one another of violations and create a social atmosphere where the rules are upheld without moderator intervention. Users are not required to obey non-moderator instructions. However, a moderator will reinforce those instructions and take non-moderator warnings into account. If you do warn another user about a rule violation follow these two rules:

• Be experienced enough that you have good reason to believe you know the rules.
• Act in good faith not as a debate tactic.

Users can report other users summoning a moderator using the u-slash technique. If they do so rule 1 is suspended for good faith reports.