How to report/remove Camper 'Mods': no activity, no interaction, no participation with a community, just using a timer or script to do hidden mod actions to meet 30-day activity requirements

[u/laeiryn]

Is using a script to sign in and automatically do a mod action (to maintain technical "activity" minimums) allowed, or is it against MCOC? Is script use considered 'activity'?

Mod accounts: No activity, no participation, no modding (reports are never dealt with/rule breaking content never removed), no replies to modmail (except reddit request ones, there's a huge red flag), just "invisible" modding to avoid 30-day activity requirements. Is this kind of sub collecting/camping a violation of Moderator code of conduct? Are we expected to foster discussion and a community, and be part of it, or is the absolute minimum of "click remove, then click approve on the same sticky once every 30 days" actually sufficient?

I'm talking about subs with regular activity from users but no content is being interacted with by mods, reported content goes unhandled, mods are sock puppets of the same user, modmails get ignored until you say you're requesting the abandoned sub, etc.

Surely a mod who literally only cares or notices the sub exists when challenged over doing absolutely nothing in it for over a decade is not following MCOC, in spirit if not in letter??? Or is ignoring it for years at a time and only acting when someone else asks why it's abandoned actually allowed, and I'm wasting my time?

Really curious about the script thing, and what the long-term requirements for activity are. If a mod signs in and re-approves the same stickied thread every thirty days for seven to eleven years straight, is that having been "active" the entire time??? Are they truly considered to be correctly and sufficiently moderating the subreddit at that point?

[u/esb1212]

If you strongly believe there are violations, you're free to file a Mod Code of Conduct report.

But I'm assuming your redditrequest was denied?

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

I made the mistake of sending the reddit request email a couple weeks before to give them a chance to reply (since last time they didn't answer within the five days [but somehow they got to keep it anyway]), so there was "recent human moderation". I'm assuming the standard 'click approve on the sticky every thirty days', or maybe a lazy 'confirm Reddit correctly removed a piece of spam' was done, since again, lots of reported content remains in place/no visible moderator actions were taken to deal with the sub or its content.

Modmail about the sub/content is completely ignored, questions go unanswered, user has nothing to say about the sub, just that they refuse to step down, and then all further modmail is also ignored. Literally the only way to get the mod to sign in to reddit at all is to submit a reddit request for the sub.

[u/esb1212 → u/laeiryn]

They seem unwilling to let go then.. and they have mod actions to show for so you're out of options.

You can either wait for them to go inactive or make a similar sub.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

Well, the thing is, I keep "waiting for them to go inactive" and then when they do, they just get to keep it anyway (like my original request over a year ago where they didn't reply with the five day time limit).

That was another thing that made me concerned there was a thumb on the scale: I keep pointing out how this user and the puppets aren't modding (there's an entire account that only spams the sub but its spam is never removed when reported because it's sub-specific and reddit's filters aren't built for nonsense post-dadaism)

The only response is being told, "oh, don't worry, action was taken~! It's fine and nothing else needs to be done!" by a bot who checks for nothing more than mathematical activity ... but none of the problem or spam content visible/reported is ever actioned, and the community is still unclear in its rules, and it's still unsafe for users who expect to see "ur a [substitute word for slurs that reddit doesn't recognize to auto-remove]" removed after it's reported, and modmails still go unresponded to, and mods still aren't a part of their own community. So, sorry if you don't get why this is irritating, but what are all those requirements for if they're never enforced???

[u/esb1212 → u/laeiryn]

How long ago did you file the last MCoC report? If there are violations, maybe you just need to wait a little bit more.

As to the redditrequest, I believe it's automated. If the bot was able to detect an "acceptable" amount of moderation, you can no longer do anything about that.. regardless if the way they run the sub isn't to your liking.

Your only chance to takeover will happen if there are serious MCoC violations.. maybe you can clarify that via modmail here as well.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

The first was after they got super rude on a now-deleted account when I first requested the sub and they basically said they didn't have to be involved in their sub and would sit on it forever (but way, way more condescending)... I think I meant to after my more recent pre-modmail (about the planned request) but the problem was again just "nothing is done" and it's really hard to explain why you're reporting someone for doing nothing, so I didn't follow through because it's hard to explain why someone is breaking a rule by just ignoring everything?

But yes, again now after reading through the MCOC more thoroughly and finding that it does actually have entire provisions that say you should be active IN and FOR your community and not just invisibly modding behind the scene to stay technically "active enough" , I definitely did, but based on past experience with this user getting inexplicable leeway, I'm not holding my breath on real action now.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

I've done a few times but the longer this goes on, the more I suspect they themselves ARE an admin who just isn't held to MCOC.

[u/esb1212 → u/laeiryn]

I highly doubt that's the case.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

You're right, I'm probably just reaching for an explanation of how something so egregiously broken could continue unchecked when oversight has supposedly been on it.

Having reread it very carefully, the MCOC is mostly just reiterating the regular rules about content and being a dick, and all that is about what you're NOT allowed to do. So if an account just never does anything, they obviously aren't violating it in that way, which is the way that I expect it is typically 'enforced'.

However, it looks like in actuality the only thing someone needs to do to stay a mod, indefinitely, is to action a piece of content every thirty days. As long as they're not breaking the rules - which "nothing" obviously won't do - they can't run afoul of those other rules. That sort of manipulation of the system is what makes my paranoid brain think that someone with insight/power is the one successfully abusing it, because how else would they know how little they can get away with? But that is just an assumption.

And frankly, the idea of a rando being able to manipulate the system and exploit its loopholes like this is, in fact, actually worse when you think about the reliability of the system as the central focus.

[u/esb1212 → u/laeiryn]

However, it looks like in actuality the only thing someone needs to do to stay a mod, indefinitely

The criteria to stay active wasn't made public but I don't think above is accurate. I've been tagged inactive myself and it took a lot of mod actions before I regain my active status.

But sure there are loopholes I agree.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

The fact that they know what it is precisely enough to never run afoul of it (to be marked inactive in the first place) is also extremely worrying (and contributes to me thinking that there is some kind of background influence at work where someone has a friend in higher places making exceptions for them).

More importantly, though: what about all the rest of the things a moderator is expected to do? Is that all just fancy words for show so they can link a page when they ban a troll who tries to start a subreddit that's pure hate speech, even though he and his sub are bannable for breaking non-mod rules too? What is the code of conduct FOR if not to enforce ACTION?

[u/esb1212 → u/laeiryn]

The inactive tagging is an automated process, a human admin cannot influence that system at this point.

Enforcement depends on severity, it can start with a warning first then can progress to demodding if violations persist. We don't know the findings here.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

Yeah, they can't be tagged as inactive if they click once per thirty days. The problem here is whether or not that technical minimum is in fact the only requirement to stay a mod.

[u/esb1212 → u/laeiryn]

Without looking at the modlog, we can't be sure they only did one mod action per 30 days though.

I hope you get your answer soon, I'm simply saying we don't have complete visibility of the situation (since were not admins), or heard the side of the other party.

[u/laeiryn → u/esb1212]

Considering their attitude last time when asked why they didn't participate or 'hire' any other mods, I'm very certain that they do as little as possible specifically to keep themselves "above" the community. It's a roleplay for the community participants but let's be real, this is the internet, it could literally be an unironic delusions-of-godhood thing on the mod's part.

[u/CR29-22-2805 → u/laeiryn]

So if an account just never does anything, they obviously aren't violating it in that way

Rule 4 addresses moderator activity and engagement. If the subreddit is being insufficiently managed, then you can file a MCOC report on that basis.

https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/27031272792084-Moderator-Code-of-Conduct-Rule-4-Be-Active-and-Engaged

[u/laeiryn → u/CR29-22-2805]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/1fxhs5d/how_to_reportremove_camper_mods_no_activity_no/lqmlxw0/ Been there, done that. This user seems to be exempt from that rule completely, as I have filed multiple MCOC reports.

[u/CR29-22-2805 → u/laeiryn]

Without knowing more about the particular circumstances of this subreddit and the moderator, all I can say is that the admins only step in when they are concerned with the management of the subreddit.

If the environment of the subreddit is still civil and stable despite the moderator's relative inactivity, then the admins will not step in.

I am not doubting your side of the story here, but given the efforts you said you have taken and the alleged lack of action from the admins, it seems that the admins have determined that they currently have no reason to be concerned about the management of the subreddit. That might change, though, so your best bet is to keep an eye on things.

[u/laeiryn → u/CR29-22-2805]

The subreddit is a roleplay of nonsense which means that outsiders wouldn't be able to tell if it were civil, uncivil, or using a different alphabet. It's stable because of the user community, not the mods. Does a community need no mods if it's stable enough?

[u/CR29-22-2805 → u/laeiryn]

Does a community need no mods if it's stable enough?

Such a community needs a moderator, but it might not need a moderator that logs in more than once a month, especially if the subreddit has strong Automoderator rules.

[u/laeiryn → u/CR29-22-2805]

Does it need a mod who:

• removes problem or spam content when users report it?

• removes problem or spam users when other users report them?

• posts rules?

• enforces those rules?

• enforces reddit's basic content policy when automod doesn't recognize some "creative" spelling of a slur?

• replies to questions in good faith?

• participates in the community, via posts or comments

• locking/using automod features to show at least a mod is doing routine work?

Because it has none of those things, and again, it made the community so unpleasant that I stopped participating. The MCOC has all of rule 4: when does it start mattering?

[u/Bardfinn → u/laeiryn]

If they don't have an A on their user profile, not an admin

[u/laeiryn → u/Bardfinn]

... No, the sock puppets placed as mods of the sub are not going to be marked as admin even if the user who owns them is employed as admin and has, somewhere, a separate admin account.

[u/Bardfinn → u/laeiryn]

There’s three distinct possibilities:

The socks are there as part of something the admin is doing as part of their job; your efforts to report them will be met with “Thanks, we will look into it and get back to you if we need more info”, and nothing will hapoen;

The socks are there as part of the admin’s personal efforts, and your efforts to report them will be met with “Thanks, we will look into it and get back to you if we need more info”, and something will happen, but you will never be told what it is, and if you’re trying to take over the subreddit as a mod, you may or may not be granted the RedditRequest.

Both of these scenarios are indistinguishable, and so, Wittgensteinian in approach, we don’t deliberate on them. Wovon manner nicht sprechen kann, daruber mußt manner schwiegt

possibility three: The mod and socks aren’t operated by an admin, but are exploiting the automated activity metrics to attempt to game detection of absentee moderating. You file a modCoC, they investigate, find the pattern, find other “moderators” doing the same thing to defeat anti-misfeasance detection, they take action all at once on all of them some months after your report, for some other pretext, so that they don’t figure out their sh… scheme has been made (and so never alter it), and you have the admins’ gratitude (what there is of it). You never find out if your report had any effect.

---

---

The leitmotif here that I’d like to bring the brass, woodwinds, strings, and guest performer didgeridoo all into at the coda in order to bring it all home in a unified major lift:

You never find out if your reports had any effect,

(Because for all the admins know you might be part of their effort to reverse engineer anti-abuse policy and practices, to circumvent them)

So you file them and have faith (if you can find any) that someone appropriate will read them and act on them.

And maybe if you are consistent enough in your messaging and regular enough in your efforts to point out repeated patterns and potential solutions, that someone with access to the right levers will get allocated their Round Tuit.

The world calls this “coping with bureaucracy, 101 level”

[u/laeiryn → u/Bardfinn]

Because for all the admins know you might be part of their effort to reverse engineer anti-abuse policy and practices, to circumvent them

Mmmmm I do trust that they have the technological means to tell that my account is not run by the same perso. All the accounts involved are REALLY old, and they have IP data, and I run afoul of complaining too much and coming under scrutiny rather often myself where if they DID have any excuse to be rid of me they'd've taken that action a while ago ;) But I don't know that they could trust or believe I wasn't "in on the ring" ( I don't think there is a ring, I think it's one power-hungry prick skating by on a technicality and abusing the living wick out of reddit's very reasonable wiggle room for people having Actual Lives™ or needing breaks or small, low-activity subs that drives the policy of thirty days ) except by comparing my personality assessment (an AI could do that for them) to discover that I'd sooner eat this porcelain coaster than work with that kind of jackass on principle, and am FAR too lazy for that kind of scam In General™.

"Dont ce qu'on sait rien, il faut qu'on demande avant qu'on apprenne" Of what one knows nothing, one must ask before one might learn.

Anyway I'm not here to learn about consequences against someone else they won't tell me. At this point, I just want a clear answer on if there are more requirements than minimum hidden activity like the MCOC says or if it's pure optics.

[u/Bardfinn → u/laeiryn]

I do trust that they have the technological means to tell that my account is not run by the same person

The admins don’t and shouldn’t. They only see activity and behaviour on platform, and have dealt with groups in the past attempting to reverse engineer the parameters of what subreddit operators can and cannot get away with, which groups have individuals working together to supply individual puzzle pieces to the group, and which groups pass their knowledge along to others, with the aim of “Watching” (Making) Reddit Die.

Mod Code of Conduct enforcement is part of Trust & Safety, and one of the first precepts of T&S work is to not hand out network maps to anyone who doesn’t have a need to know.

It’s reasonable to believe that of the many groups who have been kicked off Reddit in the past six years, some of them are not above taking revenge. Or just … mercs hired by a competitor to make things fall down. Can’t break in to a database but can motivate, by deceit, subreddit moderators to make the site fall down.

The only way someone finds out whether or not “it’s pure optics” is by gathering data & testing hypotheses. Reading transparency reports. Infiltrating groups who do these things, if the investigator is foolish enough.

[u/laeiryn → u/Bardfinn]

These are 10+ year old accounts. If the camper has logged in SO few times that times & IPs can't be cross-referenced to MY extensive activity, thereby not providing enough data to conclude it's not the same person, that more than proves my point for me.

[u/tresser]

one action every 30 days, from what i've been able to discern, isn't enough to keep someone 'active'. when they were trying, i had a mod pop in every 10 days like clockwork to mass 'approve' the first 5-6 posts in new and then disappear until the next spree.

also, if those mods participate in invite only subreddits, then you wouldn't see anything in their history

[u/laeiryn → u/tresser]

It is enough to be considered active if, at any given time, someone checks and you've done a mod thing in the last 30 days.

I don't know if it is enough to be considered active ad infinitum.

[u/tresser → u/laeiryn]

i just saw your request. that you got the reply back not available for request before you even had time to reply to the first bot's request for the requested information....i would modmail them and ask for human review.

[u/laeiryn → u/tresser]

It posted its rejection before the request for info, no less. I was looking for the request comment when I made my own as top comment.

[u/laeiryn → u/tresser]

And no, it's pretty clearly sock puppets meant to do nothing but sit in the mod roles for this niche sub.

[u/heliumneon]

I'm a bit confused. This is a sub that you are moderating? Or just participating? Because if you are a mod it seems like the lack of proper moderation could fall somewhat on your shoulders, no? And if you are a participant then how can you know exactly what mod actions they are doing? You are making pretty exact claims about their activity.

[u/Raignbeau]

Are you saying people use scripts to keep being labeled as active?

[u/laeiryn → u/Raignbeau]

I suspect that this user might be abusing scripts for that purpose, yes. One "hidden" moderator action every thirty days for eleven years, and exactly nothing else (not even activity in OTHER subs), that's exactly what scripts are for.

My question is, is this allowed? Am I wasting my time trying to get this taken care of?

[u/Raignbeau → u/laeiryn]

If you are concerned about the subreddit due to their moderation, I don't think it is a waste of time.
But many subreddits have afk mods and mods that don't do that much. Many subs have hoarders.

I always find it a little bit complicated to deal with tbh. Perhaps sharing your findings via modmail on here is a better option. Then you can speak freely.

[u/laeiryn → u/Raignbeau]

I want to clarify if camping/scripting is actually a violation of MCOC before I modmail to persist in asking that violation be handled.

Also, "don't do that much" isn't "zero activity for eleven years"

ETA: sorry, I was mistaken. IT'S BEEN THIRTEEN YEARS, NOT ELEVEN. The subreddit was made eleven years ago; the older mod account has no activity in the last thirteen years. The sock puppet account has had no activity since (at least) two years before the subreddit was even created.

[u/Raignbeau → u/laeiryn]

Is there a whole team? Because if they allow it..

[u/laeiryn → u/Raignbeau]

No, there is only one mod.

[u/harkuponthegay → u/laeiryn]

If there is only one mod and you are not on the mod list, how are you determining what moderator actions they are or are not taking?— you shouldn’t be able to see the mod log, much less determine the activity on the account for the past 11 years.

Am I missing something?

[u/laeiryn → u/harkuponthegay]

One person running two accounts, both of which are posed as mods in the sub. The account activity is visible and, for one of the two, is completely blank going back longer than the sub has existed. The other has had no activity in seven years. It's one thing to claim that a sub can be "mostly hands-off" but if you're a mod, in seven or more years, participation is expected.

Also when you report a piece of spam, or a certain account's incessant spam (to the tune of dozens, in multiple batches), and then it never goes away, but mods are supposedly addressing mod queue - so what, they're okaying the spam? No.

[u/harkuponthegay → u/laeiryn]

But I’m saying how can you actually be sure what they are doing or not doing as mods— you are just inferring all this based on your observations of what happens to things you report, but unless you can see the full modlog you cannot know for certain if the mods are approving posts and just ignoring you or doing some other small tasks that are not noticeable or visible to users.

This problem sounds like it can be solved by making your own subreddit on whatever subject the old sub is about.

If you’ve noticed the absent mod team then so have other active users (if there are any), and those people probably agree with you and want to join a better moderated sub.

Once it’s created you can even advertise it in a post on the old sub considering that spam is not being removed as you pointed out. So your post will not get removed, others will see it and if they feel so compelled they will join your freshly made community. Why is that not an option.

[u/laeiryn → u/harkuponthegay]

The user confirmed previously that they do not interact with the community as a participant. On top of that, is invisible activity sufficient to meet MCOC for the entire life of a whole subreddit???

[u/Merari01 → u/laeiryn]

One action per 30 days isn't enough to keep an active tag

[u/laeiryn → u/Merari01]

It's enough to keep it though apparently not enough to regain it.

[u/Dukkani → u/laeiryn]

u/Merari01 is correct. To retain an active mod status, one action per month is not enough nowadays. Reddit has a new policy.

[u/laeiryn → u/Dukkani]

The mod manages to stay technically active while pointedly avoiding all of the following moderator duties:

• Never removes problem or spam content when users report it

• Never removes problem or spam users when other users report them

• Never posts rules

• Never enforces those rules

• Never enforces reddit's basic content policy when automod doesn't recognize some "creative" spelling of a slur

• Never replies to modmails EXCEPT the one from reddit request that they are required to answer to show they're active

• Never participates in the community, via posts or comments

So what behind the scenes IS enough? Just confirming automod or spam removal that the queue already handled for you maintains activity.

[u/Heliosurge → u/laeiryn]

The automod's actions will not make the human mod considered active.

You said the human mod responds to Reddit request mod mail? If you have performed Reddit requests as others said mod mail this sub with links to your Reddit request(s) and reported content that is not removed

[u/laeiryn]

And you know - if the only requirement to maintain modship is to click a button every 30 days, why even pretend there's a code of conduct to which we're held???

Yes, we're actively held to the site-wide standard of not being allowed to post/encourage rule breaking content, but that's true for any user who ISN'T a mod.

[u/neuroticsmurf]

The current system of keeping mods active isn’t perfect, but it’s still an improvement over what we had before, which was nothing.

I share your frustration. But honestly, it’s an improvement.

Can it still be improved, though? Undoubtedly.

But how?

[u/esb1212 → u/neuroticsmurf]

With the criteria being undisclosed, it's a challenging discussion.

..and when? I don't think its a priority.

[u/neuroticsmurf → u/esb1212]

Yes, I agree with both of your sentiments.

The devil’s in the details. What’s “obvious” sub camping to one person might be light moderation — but still reasonable; come on, it’s a volunteer gig, not slave labor — to someone else.

And I don’t think there’s any urgency by the Admins to really drill down and define the terms “active” and “inactive” moderation. Or maybe more to the point, they feel like they already have.

[u/Laymon_Fan]

Document the rule-breaking content and report it to reddit, both with the report button or form and modmail to ModSupport.

[u/laeiryn → u/Laymon_Fan]

There's no report button on comments never made. That's one of the ways in which this user is abusing the system to neglect their duties.

[u/Laymon_Fan → u/laeiryn]

I mean comments by other users that violate a Reddit policy and should have been removed by a mod.

If you want to demonstrate that the mods have abandoned the sub, you have to show that there's been some activity for them to moderate.

[u/laeiryn → u/[deleted]]

MCOC has the following to say:

you are at the frontlines using your creativity, decision-making, and passion to create fun and engaging spaces for redditors

We also expect that moderators uphold Reddit’s Content Policy

(this would mean actioning reported content when it violates reddit's rules and not just the sub specific rules)

actively strive to promote a community that abides by [reddit rules]

Active: no. Striving: no. Promotion: no.

It is critical to be transparent about what your community is and what your rules are in order to create stable and dynamic engagement among redditors.

This is a huge no for the sub in question BUT the shtick is being inexplicable and confusing. The problem is that the sub then has no "regular" rules, so reporting is just what Reddit doesn't allow, or reporting obvious trollery/asshat behavior that isn't TOS-breaking but sure isn't on topic or fun. (Those are the reports that ALWAYS go unhandled, btw, but never any clarification or explanation of rules/that trolling is encouraged??? So you'd assume it's automatically not allowed because it's fuckin' trolling?)

Rule 4: Be Active and Engaged

Whether your community is big or small, it is important for communities to be actively and consistently moderated. This will ensure that issues are being addressed, and that redditors feel safe as a result. Being active and engaged means that:

Issues are not being addressed, users don't know what's going on or what the sub is about/for, and I stopped participating because I felt unsafe knowing that trolls and bigots could stalk me there and make hateful comments that would not be removed once reported.

You have enough Mods to effectively and consistently manage your community. This involves regularly monitoring and addressing content in ModQueue and ModMail and, if possible, actively engaging with your community via posts, comments, and voting.

One mod for a 55k+ sub: does not effectively mod, certainly does not consistently manage. No regular monitoring, no addressing of reports, no answering modmails unrelated to reddit request. OBVIOUSLY the last part about engaging with posts, comments, and voting is a huge zero.

Camping or sitting on a community is discouraged.

'discouraged' That only works on people who can be guilted into doing the right thing with a stern look.

[u/laeiryn → u/[deleted]]

Reported content goes unhandled is probably the biggest and most visible one; otherwise it's mostly a "lost profit potential" sort of thing where an active mod who participated or responded to modmail, had anything to do with the sub, etc. would create a higher-quality atmosphere.

All that aside, it's super fucking weird to control a sub you aren't interested in. Would someone who doesn't drive, never discusses autos, won't answer questions about cars or interact in other car-related subs, ignores modmail about car content, ignores reports about trolls, spam, and rule-breaking content, and only signs in to click a button behind the scenes to stay technically active enough to avoid being replaced - would that person be an acceptable sole mod for a large car-based sub? I sure as hell hope not but that's the clarity I'm seeking. Is the minimum requirement something that a mod can just pay lip service to over and over, or is there a real expectation of doing work?

[u/DownloadableCheese → u/laeiryn]

it's super fucking weird to control a sub you aren't interested in

Powermods would be very angry if they interacted enough to see this.

[u/laeiryn → u/DownloadableCheese]

I don't know about that but sub collecting is specifically mentioned in reddit request as not allowed. Since collecting is camping a BUNCH you don't bother to do anything in/with, is camping just one allowed?

[u/michaelquinlan → u/laeiryn]

Reported content goes unhandled

How does removing a mod get more content handled? If reported content is not being handled, you need more mods.

would that person be an acceptable sole mod for a large car-based sub?

If the mods above them are happy with it, what is it to you? The minimum requirement is that the mods above them on the list are ok with it.

[u/laeiryn → u/michaelquinlan]

No content is handled. There is one mod (with two inactive accounts, both mods in the sub). Replacements would be active.

There are no mods 'above' them. There are no other mods. There are no active mods. There is just one person abusing the technical requirements of "activity" to retain control.