As a moderator to one forum, I commonly edit the poster's posts if they are especially rowdy or otherwise rude to everybody else.
But its not a "prank", like what the Reddit CEO did. I make sure everybody knows that I made the edit (signing my name on the edit, using the poster's privileges), just as a warning that yes... as moderator I do have complete control over the conversation.
Its a threat that I make to keep rowdy members in check. But it only works because everyone trusts me (ie: I never "impersonate" the poster, no one ever "impersonates" my edits either). I know that if I "cross the line", then people will no longer trust me as the moderator of discussion. The position of moderator is to serve the forum, not to dictate the direction of every conversation.
The issue here is that Reddit's CEO is in charge of a community, and that community is losing faith in the leader because of his abuse of his power.
------------
From one perspective, I understand that moderators have surprisingly few options. Mods can delete posts, and maybe edit them (if they're careful and only edit in extreme circumstances). But... that's about it. Otherwise, there's not really much power mods have.
Banning doesn't really work. Everybody knows how to proxy up and reregister accounts to rejoin a forum. Warnings don't really count, a lot of posters don't care about them.
The threat of an edit war however? Well... that's basically the moderator's best tool. But it needs to be more carefully used than what the Reddit CEO did here.
But its not a "prank", like what the Reddit CEO did. I make sure everybody knows that I made the edit (signing my name on the edit, using the poster's privileges), just as a warning that yes... as moderator I do have complete control over the conversation.
Its a threat that I make to keep rowdy members in check. But it only works because everyone trusts me (ie: I never "impersonate" the poster, no one ever "impersonates" my edits either). I know that if I "cross the line", then people will no longer trust me as the moderator of discussion. The position of moderator is to serve the forum, not to dictate the direction of every conversation.
The issue here is that Reddit's CEO is in charge of a community, and that community is losing faith in the leader because of his abuse of his power.
------------
From one perspective, I understand that moderators have surprisingly few options. Mods can delete posts, and maybe edit them (if they're careful and only edit in extreme circumstances). But... that's about it. Otherwise, there's not really much power mods have.
Banning doesn't really work. Everybody knows how to proxy up and reregister accounts to rejoin a forum. Warnings don't really count, a lot of posters don't care about them.
The threat of an edit war however? Well... that's basically the moderator's best tool. But it needs to be more carefully used than what the Reddit CEO did here.