You might also trust that people who have an innate distrust of the mods will leave the site, but they won't. See the point of this whole thread, some people will stay around on your website just to hurt themselves and as many other people as they can and you HAVE to ban them.
Letting people tell lies about the mods creates an atmosphere where people won't come forward to report abusers, and you'll be up to your knees in creeps and weirdos and wondering why nobody reported them - it's because lots of the people who created that atmosphere are those same abusers, and you let them tell lies because you didn't want to look like a heavy-handed authoritarian. You can't do that. You have to ban people who lie about the mods.

Another thing about community management, which came up in this very thread: I really wanna re-emphasize the whole "Let people delete their past selves" thing.

Everyone, without exception, says stupid things online. Everyone, with very few exceptions, reflects on the stupid things they said once upon a time, and cringes. The only people who don't are people who don't grow, change, and learn.

Now if you have a culture on your site of people going through each others' post histories trying to find stupid things they said years ago, things that they wouldn't say today because they know better, then you've got a problem that goes even beyond the toxic purity tests that you'd find in places like Tumblr or LiveJournal. Places in which people can't let go of their pasts are places in which people can't change.
(obviously I'm not talking here about letting abusers off the hook, or letting creeps escape bad reputations - those accounts should be banned and records kept by the admin. I'm talking here about letting people change their minds about things. People change their minds online more often than you think - a change of heart is often disguised by a change of handle.)
In real life, people change their minds about things all the time. Online, and this is worse for places where your real-life identity is tied to your online identity, all the stupid things you said years ago that you no longer agree with can follow you around like Jacob Marley's chains.
If your site has a culture where people have long chains, and it's the norm for people to rummage around in those chains and go "Ah-HA! You said these words five years ago, now defend them or apologise!" then there really isn't a way out of that cycle, it's just gonna go round and round like that until everyone's exhausted.
This is how big, cultural, systemic change happens - people learn new things, change their minds, and look back on their past selves as strangers. Let it happen. Let your members' online identities evolve like their real life identities do. Provide ways for people to erase their accounts and make new ones that better reflect their current, hopefully improved selves.

Back to banning folks for a second, folks who lie about the mods or folks who don't want to be on the site but won't leave - banning folks feels bad.

It feels bad because you think about how you'd feel if you got banned, or it feels bad because you might feel like you've failed to change someone's mind, or it feels bad because sometimes this person can be charming or funny (abusers always are), or it feels bad because you feel like you're betraying some principle of freedom or whatever.

Being a community admin isn't easy. You'll feel bad sometimes. It feels much easier, at least in the short term, to let trolls and arseholes and people who are making themselves miserable just kinda stick around, and hope they'll leave.

You've pretty much got to deal with occasionally feeling awful. If it helps, remember this: although to you, handing down a ban can feel like giving a death sentence, to the person you're banning, it just means they'll have to look at a different website.

(and here in the year 2021 there are, currently, over three hundred websites)

Back to talking about the growth phase of online community development, the Excitement Phase where you're watching your numbers suddenly go up.

This is where you find out that the things that you didn't bother writing down because Everybody Knows are not actually the things that Everybody Knows.

I'll take an example from my game, which is a multiplayer text adventure. This really happened.

One day, you've got a few hundred active users and Everybody Knows that there's a fountain in the centre of town. You didn't write the fountain, it's a thing that players decided was there and started to roleplay around and they talk to each other and Everybody Knows about the fountain.

The following day you get linked from somewhere big and you've suddenly got two thousand people on the site.

Now, there's no fountain for a while. Because you didn't write it down in an FAQ, and the people that figured Everybody Knows about it are now outnumbered by the people who don't.

This is an example from game fiction, but the same happens for community norms. Hell look what happens here whenever Twitter does something stupid. Everybody Knows we don't do screenshot dunking for clout chasing here, until a few thousand people pile in and suddenly we don't.

If Everybody Knows, then WRITE IT DOWN!

(in the new town system I've been working on, there's a line of text on the square where the fountain lives that says "There is not, nor has there ever been, a fountain here." Until someone uses the word fountain in chat, at which point the line becomes "There's a merrily-trickling fountain here with benches around it." Letting site members make their in-jokes canonical helps make things cosy, and explaining in-jokes to new members makes the place feel welcoming)
At some point there'll be some kind of culture war on your site. Write down what happens! These flamewars leave scars and affect the way people react to things in the future that remind them of the war. If you're able to tell the story of what happened and how it resolved, then you'll discourage the same thing from happening again and provide context for why people act the way they do around certain topics.
See Kittania Banter appendix at https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php - having moments from site history in the Code of Conduct helps explain why the current rules exist and how the current cultural norms came to be, and stops you from going in circles repeating annoying or damaging dynamics over and over again (or constantly answering "why" questions).
Code of Conduct

Explain tumultuous site history and in-jokes that are vital to illustrating community norms. Don't explain in-jokes that are just for fun or fluff - veterans explaining in-jokes to newbies creates bonding and a sense of community responsibility.

Keep an eye on veteran users who are very quick to welcome newbies.

Keep two eyes on them if they don't interact much with other veterans.

If you see them invite newbies to a Discord or some other off-site comms where you can't keep an eye on them, get out the bloody microscope and cast out your feelers along the whisper networks, 'cause you might well be dealing with an unreported creep.

A welcome wagon will develop on your site and it's nearly indistinguishable from a creep looking to abuse their position of experience as power over new members or indoctrinate them into a particular way of thinking. The way to tell a genuine friendly-welcomer from an abuser going fishing is to watch their interactions with other long-term members, but even if they seem kosher in that respect keep an eye on the members they take under their wing and watch how they develop.

(don't let the community members know you're sniffing around the welcome wagon. Genuine friendly welcome wagons are an unambiguous good, don't jeopardize them by making them feel self-conscious or suspected of foul play.

Hey, I never said this was easy. It's a balancing act.)

A big problem with online communities is they tend to be put together by techy computery programmy logical people, and folks like that tend to assume that people behave rationally, that the things people do make sense, that there's some sort of order behind people's behaviour.

There bloody isn't. People torture themselves for no reason at all, and make you watch. Every five minutes some techy person starts an online community and is shocked, SHOCKED, to find that people are basically bonkers.

(some admins of online communities even believe that all speech is good speech and that there's a thing they call a "marketplace of ideas," which is presumably based around real, money-for-goods markets, and they type out defences of these markets on their QWERTY BLOODY KEYBOARDS, a layout designed to slow down typists so typewriters wouldn't jam, which the market has decided is all we need here in the year 2021. But I digress.)

Anyway these computery programmery types reckon hey I'll whack together some cool new social tech and I can just spend all my time coding to make it better and people will be happy.

Bollocks. If I spend 20% of the time I devote to my game actually writing the game, then that's a code-heavy week. Programming is not what you need to be good at, to do this kind of thing.

People isn't even what you have to be good at, it's not enough to be a very social person, because people act really differently online than they do IRL.

Being Very Online isn't even what you need to be good at, because that only gives you an end-user's perspective, which is useful sometimes but way less often than you think.

Really the only thing that can make you good at admin'ing an online community is doing it for a long time and talking to other admins.

Hey, sorry if you wanted some kinda Ten Neat Tricks thing.

It's very hard, often painful, you're invisible when you do a good job, very visible when you mess up, everyone thinks they can do a better job than you (and the only thing that convinces them otherwise is trying it (and nearly all will never try)), and there are no shortcuts. That's it.

Anyway if you've enjoyed this thread come check out my online game which is in the Sustainably Cosy phase of its so-far thirteen-year life cycle, at https://www.improbableisland.com.
Improbable Island

The weirdest old-school text adventure on the internet.

AND ANOTHER THING while I think about it, on the subject of the Decline phase of a community website's lifecycle, which can be characterized as either Sustainable Cosiness or Tragic Heartbreak depending on whether or not the people who are there actually want to be there:

If you're ever on a website and you find yourself thinking "Man, this website's culture is super toxic, I'd better increase my involvement so as to provide a good example and thereby improve it," then CHRIST JUST RUN

Like I applaud your motivations but RUN

RUN RUN RUN

THIS IS WHY HALF THE PEOPLE ON REDDIT ARE STILL ON REDDIT

"I'll upvote the good stuff and downvote the bad stuff because this is an Important Website and there should be good people on it so that when the media runs a -" RUUUUUUNNNNNN

"If I leave, then there'll be one less good person on the site, and sooner or later it'll just become -" IT'S TOO LATE ALREADY RUNNNNNN

THE MONSTER IS BEHIND YOU AND IT'S GOT YOUR ANKLES!

Like srsly if you, the viewer, are on a website you don't like, in order to make the website better in exchange for NO MONEY, when THAT'S THE BLOODY WEBSITE OWNER'S JOB, then watch for me galloping away over the hills, I'm gonna look behind me just long enough to shout back "IT'S A TRAAAAAAP!"

More on community management and banning people? Sure yeah more on community management and banning people.

Ban the nazis? Sure! That's easy. No, really, it's easy - only websites run by really rich and often evil people claim to find it hard, and that's because they just don't actually WANT to, even though hosting nazis costs them money and goodwill.

It's incredibly easy to ban nazis, which is why nazis aren't high up on the list of worries for the typical online community.

You see someone openly being a nazi, you ban them, they're easy to deal with. The sort of users who can actually be troublesome are the ones who don't quite, technically, break the rules, just push up against them here and there, trying to find boundaries, see how far they can take things. Sometimes for years.

Often they're well liked, which makes it hard to ban them because you might fear fallout. Unfortunately you HAVE to ban them, because they usually turn out to be creeps.

These folks often turn out to be creepy abusers because they don't just do this boundary-testing with your site rules and established culture. They take the same approach to other things in their life, including interactions with your other members, which the like to take off-site so you can't keep an eye on them.

They push, they see what they can get away with, and they push a little more. They're often funny and charming.

There's often a whisper network about them.

Be prepared for blowback when you ban these creeps. When you finally do, it'll look less like you banned a known abuser/manipulator to keep the community safe, and more like you smote them down because they had half a toe over the line. Be prepared with the logs you've kept on this person and statements from other members who've interacted with them.

You DO keep logs of all moderator/user actions, don't you? Start now. If you don't, abusers can fly under the radar for a long time.

If you think the "banning folks" part of running an online community is all about seeing some guy spout racist slurs and bringing the hammer down on them, you're gonna be disappointed. People are sneakier than that.

A thing that's really worked out well on Improbable Island is telling players right in the CoC about the sort of tactics that abusers like to use, so members can recognize them. https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php

It's not enough to simply ban abusers when their victim comes forward, because abusers never (and I mean NEVER) have only one victim, and the one who comes forward is never (and I mean NEVER) the first.

You can't be reactive about abusers. You have to create an environment in which:

1. Victims are likely to recognize abuse when it's happening to them;
2. Victims feel empowered to come forward with a report and they know they'll be taken seriously;
3. Abusers are wary of abusing.

And this is HARD. And there's not really a thing (apart from having a guide to common abuse/manipulation tactics right there on your site) that I can recommend to every online community, they're all different.

One tip: make very clear that men, specifically, will be believed if they come forward with a report. Most progressive/leftist spaces take "Believe women" as a matter of policy, and that's great, but men are even less likely to report abuse and they really do need it spelled out.

Make it very clear that you're aware that anybody, regardless of their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their socioeconomic class, or really anything else about them, can end up in an abusive relationship or situation, and that you're there to help.

Seriously, if you're doing a Spring Clean of creeps and you even IMPLY that you're aware that men get abused too, men will come forward with their own stories about the creeps you're already investigating. This happened on my community.

After you ban someone for being an abusive creep, you need to let the community know you've banned them for being an abusive creep. If you don't, then they'll contact other members off-site and continue the abuse. When you do, you'll get many more reports as people now feel empowered to come forward, and you'll feel like crap because you didn't know this person was doing these awful things.

You'll also get lots of angry messages of disbelief because abusers are always funny and charming.

So now, for a lot of folks, you're the evil admin who banned a beloved community member. And to some others, you should've known they were a creep sooner.

Remember, you have power. These people sending you horrible messages are punching up.

Don't get into this game unless you've got a thick skin. Don't get into this game unless you can put yourself in others' shoes and understand why they might act the way they do. Don't get into this game if you expect people to *always* be understandable.

In your ban announcement, tell people that feedback they have about the ban should go directly to you, and if you see them bitching about it in the public channels there'll be consequences, because right now someone's thinking about coming forward with a report about another creep (there's never just one) and if they see someone being vocally disbelieving then future creeps will run around unchecked and the cycle will repeat.

This came up in the thread: we all know the story of the bartender who kicked out the nice, polite, respectful nazi because he knew if he didn't then the nazi would go tell his friends and then the bartender would be running a nazi pub.

Those bans are STILL easy. You won't receive ANY blowback, because everyone knows nazis are bad. It takes seconds and you don't even need to announce a ban like that, any more than you need to announce bans of robo-spammers, nazis are just noise.

Seriously, nazis of any description are not a problem at all on any well-run website. We ban a few every month, it's nothing, they're easy to spot, they don't even register as an issue, I've instance-blocked a few here on Fedi just while writing this thread.

As a community manager, you don't need to worry about nazis unless you're managing a nazi website, and if you are then you're probably not reading this thread.

Abusers are hard to spot and hard to ban. Nazis are easy.

Here are a few people who are harder to ban than nazis:

* Abusers who are clever enough to fly under the radar until a lot of people like them.
* Creeps who, when they suspect they're under investigation but before they get banned, post criticism of mod policy so as to make the ban look retaliatory.
* Serial abusers who don't fit the model of what people think when they hear "serial abuser" - not necessarily straight, cis, white, rich or male.

* Abusers who are themselves victims of abuse.
* Neurodiverse abusers who are not aware of the abuse they inflict on others, or who claim they are not aware.
* Wealthy abusers who pay a significant proportion of the site's hosting bill, without whom the site is in financial trouble.

Banning any of these people is EXHAUSTING and will make you and others feel TERRIBLE.

Banning nazis is morally uncomplicated and only other nazis or American journalists will have anything to say about it.

There's really only a few websites that let you be a nazi, reddit, twitter, stormfront, facebook, 4chan are the only big ones that come to mind, every other website treats them like spam and bans them without even thinking about it.

If someone tells you that it's difficult and morally complicated to ban nazis, you're not talking to a community manager, you're talking to a nazi who runs a nazi website.

Some of the bannings I've done were like trolley problems, nazis aren't.

How about this one: someone on your site who hints that they might hurt themselves unless other members talk to them. They're an emotional vampire, burning out members left and right, and you really really wish they could get some help, but they live in some godawful hellscape where mental healthcare costs lots of money and they're poor.

Do you ban this poor, obviously hurting person, who's inflicting a lot of hurt on your community?

Do you try to help them, knowing you're not the first and you won't succeed and you won't be the last, investing dozens of hours that you could be spending making cool things for your other members?

Do you ban them? There's a small but non-zero risk that they might literally kill themselves if you do that.

Taking no action is tempting, and would be the worst decision you could make.

I've been in this position more than once.

THAT'S a hard decision. It's NOT a hard decision to ban a nazi.

If you make the wrong decision at any point, it'll follow you around for years. Even many of the correct decisions you make will get you vilified.

It takes a decade of first hand experience, minimum, to get good at this, but the expectation from users is that you'll be perfect from the getgo.

The job requires empathy and ruthlessness at once.

Yikes this thread went from "Here's how to run an online community" into "Here's why not to run an online community" huh :P

This whole big long thing, and I'm gonna have a lil break from it but I'm probably not done, is why when people bang on about Eugen's latest screwup I'm more inclined to give the guy a break than a lot of other folks.

It's also why, when someone asks for a feature and says I can probably code it up in a day or two, I'm inclined to dance around them pointing and laughing and holding my belly

Oh haha I'm not done at all, if your community is successful enough to stick around for a decade (hardly any do) then the world will change around it and the dumbass jokes you made ten years ago will have aged badly. So you just rewrite them or remove them, right? You gotta keep up with the times.

Someone will notice and shout at you for being overly PC. I mean fair enough, that's better than being shouted at for being insensitive - oh no now everyone's talking about what it used to say 😬

You said dumb shit when you were younger, come on. We all did. We're different people now. Remember when I said make it easy for folks to let go of their pasts? Remember when I said that was impossible for celebrities who put their real name on their tweets or whatever? To the members of your online community, you're a celebrity. HAHA WELCOME TO THE SHIT CLUB

Some community members will suck up to you because they're the sort of little goody twoshoes who always told the teacher when someone was pulling funny faces while they were writing on the blackboard.

Some will have a go at you just because you hold some piffling amount of power over one particular thing they do in their free time, they hate authority of even the tiniest and most half-arsed sort and they want everyone to know it.

Vanishingly few will interact with you like NORMAL BLOODY PEOPLE

Someone downthread said they wish this thread would get picked up by tech blogs.

If it does, hi to all the 20somethings who know how to glue twenty different Javascript libraries together and who think that that's enough, and who will absolutely not heed any of this advice at all! I look forward to reading your own versions of this thread in ten or twelve years' time.

(if it sounds like I don't like programmers, you're right, I am one)

I'd better say some nice things in case people think it's all doom and hard decisions and big consequences.

The best part of my job is when someone emails me to say they've gotten married after meeting someone on the game, and this has happened a lot and will likely happen in any moderate to large online community. It's a lovely feeling, that this wonderful thing has happened that you weren't even trying for.

We've been really lucky and we've actually had more marriages than bans. That's partially down to the site being designed to deliberately put off a good chunk of its potential audience by, like, being text-based, having a big wall right at the start (hi hypothetical tech blogs, I see you sputtering there, yes this is the opposite of what y'all do and I do it on purpose), and partially down to the general culture and atmosphere kinda guiding people towards non-dickery.
(and that's a thing. Your mods steer the site's culture like steering an old, mouldy boat - try it if you ever get the chance, you make a tiny correction and then ten seconds later you see the shift, it's not like steering a bike or a car where you see instant results, at least unless you're being really heavy-handed. If you get the culture and atmosphere straight enough then the members set the tone and things tick over with much less direct intervention necessary)

(the physical design of your site, the colours, the layout, set the tone for how people behave on it, moreso than you think.)

Anyway we used to mention that in the site rules, the more-people-married-than-banned thing - it's still true, but we took it out because having it there could give people - maybe people trying to work up the nerve to report an abuser - the impression that we don't ban enough people. Or that we want to preserve this ratio by not banning people who need banned.

This is a very roundabout thread but I see I've got people reading it and this bit's important so I'm just gonna whack it in there: people generally don't report abusers.

This isn't because your site has an atmosphere where people are afraid to talk to the mods and you suck. Well, I mean, you might, but that's besides the point, even if you didn't suck people still wouldn't report their abusers for ALL SORTS OF REASONS.

These are known among certain circles as Barriers To Reporting.

People might not report their abusers because their abusers are well liked (they always are, that's how they get away with it) or because they're not sure they're being abused or if it's all in their head (they're being gaslit) or because the abuser's got dirt on them and might retaliate, or for all sorts of other reasons. These are all barriers to reporting.

NAME THEM AND TALK ABOUT THEM ON YOUR SITE. Then people will notice that they have their own barriers and that helps to dismantle them.

Here's the MotD on my site where we started operation stair repair. This names lots of barriers to reporting:
https://www.improbableisland.com/motd.php?id=467

This and the followup MotD are linked to from the Code of Conduct (linked a few times in the thread).

Naming the barriers to reporting is as important as naming and dissecting the tactics of abusers. This helps create an environment where abusers don't have it so easy. I call this "manipulation inoculation."

Improbable Island Message of the Day (MoTD)

@ifixcoinops Ive always wondered why people dont do that when starting out, if you want to grow something out you need a hardcore of people who are more aligned and less flakey and more likely to defend your corner if things get weird.

I liken it to the musicians who build a loyal fanbase prior to joining a (major) record label as it means there is less dependency and need to conform.

@ifixcoinops I respect you as a person.

@ifixcoinops

I'm only a 1/4-way through this thread, so someone has probably already said this, but you should write this up in a longform, and post it to the Hackerspace wiki.

Everything i have read so far stands out as being true of physical spaces as well.

10 years ago, there were a large number of members of the London Hackspace that avoided the IRC channel like the plague due to it being toxic.

It changed when a large group of them left.

@vfrmedia

@BillySmith @vfrmedia It's a long boi! I'm figuring on posting it somewhere when it's Done, but who the heck knows when that'll be.

@ifixcoinops

Also, when you need a horrifying laugh, have a look at this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E

:D

Mind Control Cults

YouTube
@ifixcoinops I've been running a community that's about to hit the 8 year mark soon and I can definitely back this up, we've changed with the times and had to shed a few members who refused to come along
@ifixcoinops as I totally agree with everything above this (I've maintained an online community around Minecraft for years), I disagree about Eugen. Yes he's overwhelmed by his project. But he killed and is killing his whole team, he refuse to listen to other admins and he want to keep all the project for himself. And that's the shittiest thing an admin would do! And you know that!

@ifixcoinops

> Yikes this thread went from "Here's how to run an online community" into "Here's why not to run an online community" huh :P

this is one of those domains where pretty much the only way i'll trust anyone who tells you how is if their advice tends towards "don't".

@ifixcoinops

if some major tech blog doesn't pay you for this article, they are all fools.

@Nikolai_Kingsley Haha no major tech blog is gonna pay me for this because they are all fools 😝

@ifixcoinops

seriously, if there is ever a book of Serious Shit People Should Know, this will be in it.

@ifixcoinops
> If someone tells you that it's difficult and morally complicated to ban nazis, ..., you're talking to a nazi who runs a nazi website.
Are you serious? "If you don't want to ban nazis you are a nazi" is some serious transitive guilt-by-association thinking there.
I'm sorry to respond to an old post but I couldn't let that slide.
Oh, by the way, if you were thinking that I am a nazi for saying this, check my profile.

@ifixcoinops @fraying Wow, what I thread. I didn’t get much past this, but the trolley problem of banning. Yes. I had to deal with some emotional vampires who were probably not mentally healthy. It is *hard*.

Pro-tip, do not run a large fan community when you’re 15 years old, you are *not* prepared! 🫥

@ifixcoinops This reminds me of a situation that a friend with a decade-old band that happens to appeal to a lot of younger fans went through. They found out only a few months ago that one of the sort of tertiary members who performed with them for years was having inappropriate-to-rape-adjacent relationships with some of the fans, especially underage ones. they booted him out IMMEDIATELY and clearly explained their reasons why,
@ifixcoinops but of course they still had tons of blowback, many fans insisting that the booted guy had only ever been nice for them (I had even had a crush on him myself at one point, until I found out he was horrible). It's hard for people to reconcile their favorable impression of someone with the horrible things others are saying about them, especially if they're being said by strangers.
@ifixcoinops But that requires a conscious decision on your part to ignore the bias in your thinking and realize that someone can be perfectly kind to you and horrible to others, people do that all the time.
@ifixcoinops Ironically they had kicked another member out years ago, for never attending practices and just being in general unreliable, but he'd put on such a "goofy but loveable" persona that fans who only saw the "fun" side of him during performances were infuriated.
@ifixcoinops It's always a hit to the band to willingly and publicly kick out members who reveal what horrible people they are, but I've known my friend/one of the founders for a very long time and he could never countenance morally looking the other way, even if it benefitted them professionally to pretend not to know all the heinous things going on under the public surface.
@ifixcoinops (sorry if that showed up in a weird order, I'm new to mastodon and still find it very confusing)

@toplesstopics Yup, this is S.O.P. for getting rid of abusers, they're always fun and charming - if they weren't, then they wouldn't have the ability to become abusers, they'd just be arseholes and folk would stay away.

The only thing that breaks out of this cycle that I've found works is raising the consciousness of the userbase, letting them know exactly how abusers operate.

It's worse in leftist/progressive spaces because people go "Wait, they're on our side, surely they can't be abusers?"

@ifixcoinops I experience a lot of that with my #freethenipple feminism content. All the time I get leftists who start following me thanks to my anti-trump tweets, but then they say something sexual about my body and I ask them not to, suddenly they flip around into "shut up ugly whore you're just showing your tits for attention"
@toplesstopics Aye I checked your profile before following back, I'm on board with desexualizing women going topless (more and more on board every year as the summers get hotter) but you're prob fighting an uphill battle on like youtube and instagram and weird prudish/violent places like that for video content. I see you're new to the Fediverse, have you heard about Peertube? It's to Youtube what Mastodon is to Twitter, might be the perfect fit for you!
@ifixcoinops Oh yeah, I've been waging this battle for about a decade, I've seen all the ins and outs of insane puritanical censorship x.x The one who got me to try mastodon in the first place @Xantulon wants me to try peertube as well, it's on my to-do list, I just have a lot going on even beyond the TT thing. x.x I just wish I could make videos and post them where people can actually find them and not have to jump through endless hoops just to exist!
@ifixcoinops I really appreciate how you’ve gone into such depth about community management. It’s rare to see such useful, practical advice.
@ifixcoinops

Your entire thread here reminds me of the time I defaulted my way to being the head admin of a 20k member FB group. I was originally added to the leadership team while the main mod team took a two-week break. Shortly after their return, there was some drama between the active mod team and the head admin which resulted in myself and the two other dudes who were added as temp backup having the keys to the kingdom.

Directly relevant to the post I'm replying to, "no backseat moderation" is a necessary rule to prevent meta-discussion from choking out the on-topic threads. I've seen more than two Facebook groups devolve into TERF wars due to the leadership teams either picking a side and leaving up posts they agree with or due to a naive marketplace of ideas moderation. That group for mocking people's culinary TikTok pranks? Now a platform for anti-TERF action and no stupid food to be found. The houseplants on stair appreciators club? May as well be renamed to "JK Rowling did nothing wrong"

This is getting mildly off-topic, but at least on Facebook, bringing up TERFs is the most reliable way for a troll to derail a group. You cannot control in which direction it'll derail, but it will derail more spectacularly than if racism, climate change denial, or general normie US politics are brought up.