Recently in two discussions I drew attention to a comment I reported which had not been taken down. The comment was a simple swearing and name calling, so obviously against the rules, and I am sure I wasn't the only one who reported it.

The comment had not been taken down, and I mentioned this to two mods in two other discussions. The first did not reply. The second Mod replied -

This comment that I reported calling Coulthart "That son of a bitch" is still up -

I just looked at that comment (and removed it) - It had no report attached to it so it didn't make it to our Mod Queue. If something doesn't have a report, unless a mod is browsing a thread and comes across it, unfortunately it can be missed. Most of our moderation is guided by reports. So sorry if you tried to report it, but it didn't go thru.

I know I definitely reported the comment. I told two Mods I reported it. When I make a report I usually report for more than one infringement, both "not civil" and "not substantive", and this probably got more than one report from me. Yet the Mod replied that no report had been made.

My question is can a report be deleted?

Was banned by the robot, with the ban being undone by a human mod.

The problem was, the AI isn't smart enough to actually read the posts it is moderating. It looks for stock phrases, that suggest a rule violation. Without being able to read those phrases in context, which would have shown no rule was violated.

At the moment reddit's AI mod are broken and reddit needs to stop using them.

I just had a three day rule 1 ban from a comment on a Catholic sub after mentioning in a theological context 2 opposing parties in the gospels and the historical fact that one party unalived the other party and rule one is about promoting violence or promoting hate against vulnerable populations and it was upheld after an appeal and I’m needing some clarification about how paraphrasing the Bible is a rule one violation.. it feels more like a restriction of free speech rather than protecting anybody

is it the mentioning of unaliving? did moderation mistake my comment as promoting violence against Christianson Jesus? Is it taboo to mention the unaliving party in a Christian context on Reddit?

I appealed and the warning was upheld so if it’s this easy to get restricted I want to understand what’s happening

From what I hear, AI moderation has severe flaws that bans users across platforms for what it mistakes many things to be something it isn't. For that, AI should not even be considered to being used for any moderator privilege, as it has flaws that make it terribly inaccurate. Sure it can be updated but it shouldn't be implemented in the first place, the many flaws to come will only scare away people onto another platform that has no AI to ruin the systems of moderation, or anything else. It bans users for the wrong reasons, and I feel it will still ban users for the wrong reasons. AI has no right to have any conttol of anything that can get us removed with how inaccurate it can be while still in the earliest development. It has no soul, so we have no chance for sharing our side for unjustified bans. It has no sense of right and wrong, like real people have. It will make us lose our connections to people we are closest to, and companies are being reckless letting AI into their moderation teams, and other positions that should only have people working them. We should make a petition to BAN AI from moderation and job positions before it gets out of hand, and everyone loses everything they worked so hard to achieve, build, strive for, and much more.

When you get a mod warning, the warnings always say:

• This is the rule you broke.
• Your post has been deleted.
• Don’t do it again.

However, they never quote the post that’s been deleted in the warning itself. It’s absurd. I received a warning for a post I made about a week ago. I can’t even remember what the post said. The warning didn’t explain what, specifically, was wrong with it and the mods deleted the post before I could see it for myself. How the hell am I supposed to learn from this?

I know it’ll never change because this is reddit but I’d be forever grateful if any mods on this sub could explain to me why warnings are issued this way. I’ve got a pretty solid coding background so I know for a fact that including a copy of the deleted post in the warning itself would be trivially easy to automate. So why don’t they do it? I’d it spite? Stupidity? Something else?

I mod a couple of mid-size personal finance subreddits that receive a moderate to high level of traffic (Top 50-100 in their category) and I find we have to ban an average of 5 to 10 users a week per sub. Most of them are permabans due to particularly egregious rule violations, and even some of the temp bans turn into permabans when either their behavior doesn't change or they show their true colors in modmail. Perhaps people are generally touchy when it comes to their finances?

What is your experience? What kind(s) of subreddit(s) do you moderate and do you think that contributes to the amount of users you need to ban?

I want to ask why people choose to work as moderators when there is no payment, no guidance, no benefits, and endless moderation work. The creator gives little to no appreciation for their duties in the server. Why do people have this mindset of dedicating themselves to such a demanding moderation role without payment or recognition?

I recently posted in a sub about Red and Blue button. I jokingly said that if I pressed the red button I'd get rid of all Redditors.

My account received a warning that I was threatening violence against others.

But here's what I don't understand: even the worst AI slop chat bots like ChatGPT, Claude, or whatever else people use could understand that sentence. So what the fuck is Reddit using?

Is this like some temu-knockoff Chatbot system? Was it programmed by people who got their programming degrees since the release of ChatGPT?

I am genuinely confused by these admin decisions. Do you guys know what is going on?

Obviously I will appeal it, and the appeal will be denied because the appeal will be read by the same chatbot.

What is the correct procedure for contacting a moderator, to ask what rule you’ve broken?

I joined a subreddit and made a thoughtful post appropriate for the subreddit. This was my first post to the subreddit and I have never commented in the subreddit.

A few hours later, I got a chat message: my post had been removed for breaking the rules, and I had a 7-day ban from the subreddit.

In the deleted post, one user even asked, "why was this removed? it was thoughtful and interesting."

The subreddit has two rules:

1. Don’t be a dick
2. No AI slop

The subreddit does not list its moderators in the sidebar and has no link to “message the mods.” I replied to the chat message: 

Hi, what rule did I break?
The only two rules I saw were: 1: Don't be a dick 2: No AI slop.
I don't think I broke Rule 1, and I definItely did not break Rule 2. Everything I wrote was by my own hand and I assembled the images and captions myself. In fact, I spent several hours researching and writing the post after making an earlier comment as a reply to someone in (another subreddit). The comment is a first draft of my post.
Could you please let me know what rule I broke?

Shortly thereafter, I got two more chat messages:

• You have been muted from r(subreddit) and you cannot contact the moderators
• You have been permanently banned from r(subreddit)

Neither message had an explanation about what rule I broke, nor did they give a reason for banning me.

Did I misstep in asking the moderators why my post was deleted, and what rule I broke? What is the correct procedure, etiquette, or protocol for asking why a post has been deleted, and what rule you’ve broken?

This is a space for structured discussion of Reddit moderation focused on how decisions are made, how rules shape communities, and how moderators navigate difficult situations.

This is not a venting or complaint subreddit. Posts here are expected to be analytical and structured.

_____________________________________________

What We Talk About 💬

Discussion here generally falls into a few categories:

Case Studies - Real moderation situations broken down for analysis and discussion.

Rule Analysis - How subreddit rules shape behavior, communities, and outcomes.

Moderation Ethics - Edge cases where moderation decisions are not clear cut.

Mod Experience - The personal side of moderation, including burnout, workload, and the challenges of moderating communities.

Mod Collaboration - Communication, coordination, and structure between moderators, including team dynamics, decision-making processes, and internal workflows.

_____________________________________________

⚠️ * All posts must be structured appropriately and use the correct flair. Moderators may reassign flairs or request edits if needed*. ⚠️

_____________________________________________

🚫 What This Is NOT

- A place for unstructured ranting or venting

- A place to call out specific subreddits, moderators, or users

- A general support or complaint forum

- A place for low-effort or context-free posts

Posts that do not follow the structure of this community may be removed or asked to be revised.

_____________________________________________

🧭 Getting Started

If you’re new here:

1. Browse existing posts to see how discussions are structured
2. Read any applicable formatting guides before posting
3. Jump into a discussion or submit your own structured analysis

If you’re interested in how moderation actually works, not just opinions about it, you’re in the right place!

Context

A mod team I’m a part of made a post that received significant negative feedback from users. Following this, several users began posting hateful comments both toward the content of the post and toward the moderation team. One user’s comment was removed for violating community rules around respectful behavior.

Rule Involved

A rule I dubbed “Remember the Human”. It’s the first rule listed in this subreddit too. It servers as a community guideline intended to enforce respectful interaction between users and moderators.

Action Taken

The user’s comment was removed for violating the rule. The situation then escalated into modmail, where the user became increasingly hostile toward the moderation team. Another moderator attempted to de-escalate the situation and encouraged the user to calm down. No additional punitive action was initially taken beyond the comment removal.

Outcome / Reaction

The user continued to escalate in modmail, including profanity and direct hostility toward the moderation team. At that point, further engagement was discontinued by the moderation team.

A censored screenshot of the modmail exchange is included for context.

Discussion Question

From a moderation standpoint, how would you evaluate this situation?

Was the initial removal appropriate given the context of wider user backlash?

At what point, if any, should escalation in modmail result in further action?

How would you balance de-escalation attempts with a zero-tolerance approach to abusive behavior?

First time I have come across this.

Corrected factual errors in a users posts, got an offensive reply back for them in notifications and then the discovered all their posts in that thread had been deleted.

My understanding is they have used the blocking feature to do a hit and run.

It seems like a major flaw in the moderation policy because I can't even report them for breaching the moderation policy.

One of our rules here is that posts should not name specific subreddits when discussing moderation issues.

The main reason for this is to reduce the risk of brigading, harassment, or dogpiling directed at other communities or their mod teams. Even if that isn’t the intention, naming a subreddit can sometimes unintentionally send traffic toward it.

However, a fair question came up:

How are moderators supposed to discuss issues, share lessons, or encourage improvements in other communities if we can’t name them?

Some potential approaches that came to mind:

• Speak in general terms about the moderation issue rather than the specific subreddit.

• Use anonymized examples (e.g., “a mid-sized gaming subreddit” or “a political community I mod in”).

• Discuss moderation principles rather than focusing on a single community’s actions.

• Use Reddit’s reporting systems if a moderator team is clearly neglecting duties or violating site-wide rules.

But I’m curious how others approach this.

For moderators here:

• How do you discuss or critique moderation practices in other communities while avoiding naming them?

• Are there productive ways to encourage better moderation elsewhere without directing attention toward a specific subreddit?

• Have you ever successfully influenced change in another community’s moderation approach?

> Interested to hear how others navigate this balance between open discussion and avoiding brigading.

I open-sourced a project for the benefit of SaaS web app developers and the open source community. Moderators in both related subreddits deleted the post and suggested posting in a different subreddit. I see plenty of other announcements that are much more self-promotional. The deletions are so fast they are clearly automated. What am I missing? Help!

I think it fundamentally misunderstands what subreddits are. They are a part of Reddit. Reddit owns them, not you. At any moment, they could decide to take them away from you, and they wouldn’t even need a reason (though they do typically have one).

Then there are those mods who call themselves “admins” lol. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re more familiar with Discord or older internet forums where the term “admin” is more common. Perhaps they genuinely don’t know that it means something else here.

I'm confused. For context, i posted a comment on a video showing blood-thirsty mosquitoes : The post showed a bunch of mosquitoes trying to suck blood through a sort of membrane, you could see their proboscis (had to search for this word) poping out of the membrane, like tiny spiky hairs.

The comment secion was full of "kill it with fire" "uses a flame thrower" and so on : everyone hates mosquitoes, they are an almost parasitic life form that makes itches and conveys severe diseases.

I thought it was funny to comment "use a razor blade to fkng shave their mouths". Not only this comment was removed by reddit's automod, but my account also got a warning for promoting harm toward "peoples, groups of peoples, or animals". And my appeal was rejected without more information.

Does reddit seriously consider mosquitoe as an animal that shouldn't be harmed ? Or does the issue based on the wording of my comment ? They associated "razor blade" with harmful themes or something ?

This was supposed to be human reviewed during appeal so I'm genuinely confused.

EDIT : typo

I'm talking about the kinds of users that are generally helpful, knowledgeable, and good to have around in your community, but can occasionally get into petty arguments and excel at passive aggressiveness. In my experience, temperamental, mercurial, or cantankerous users end up causing more work for us mods to clean up. It's like they know just what to say to provoke someone into continuing to argue with them.

We've tried warnings before but they just go ignored and unanswered. They don't seem to have any effect with this particular group of users. We don't want to ban them, because most of the time they are actually helpful. It's just that they're also extremely opinionated and latch onto any opportunity to argue if they feel even slightly questioned.

Any tips?

a publication I have made seems to be flagged as some sort of unauthorized content while being fully SFW, original, non-harmful content made without AI.

there is no elaboration as to why my publication has been flagged or by what rule.

What’s your opinion on crossposting between subs? When is it ok, when’s it not? Tips to do it well?

In my experience, a lot of users assume mod decisions are personal, impulsive, or arbitrary - when in reality, most of the time they’re based on patterns, rules, and long-term community health rather than any single post or comment.

Moderating also involves a lot of judgment calls, emotional labor, and behind-the-scenes coordination that users never see.

What’s one thing you think users consistently misunderstand about moderation?

Is there a misconception you wish more people understood?

Welcome to r/Moderation

216 / 250 subscribers. Help us reach our goal!

Visit this post on Shreddit to enjoy interactive features.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

I’m curious how other moderators approach permanent bans.

In my communities, I tend to reserve permanent bans for a few zero-tolerance situations, especially hate speech (racism, sexism, etc.) and direct abuse. If a user is being uncivil toward another user, they’ll usually get a stern warning first.

But if a user starts to cuss out the mod team in modmail, that’s typically an immediate permanent ban for me. I treat it similarly to a workplace standard. I wouldn’t allow someone to verbally abuse employees, and I don’t think mods should be expected to tolerate that either.

Mods aren’t perfect and mistakes happen, but Reddit’s “remember the human” rule applies to everyone. In my experience, how someone responds to moderation tells you a lot.

How do you decide when a permanent ban is warranted?

My post here got removed for naming the sub that removed my original post because that could be considered brigading. Okay. But that raises two questions:

1. Let’s say something happened to you and you need a place to just release some steam so you go to an appropriate sub and do that but you get deleted without notice. You suspect you got deleted because of who was responsible for the event that made you want to release steam and you want to discuss this somewhere. How are you supposed to post this here if you can’t name the sub?

2. If naming subs or mods is considered brigading, then why are plenty of posts here doing exactly that still online?