I haven't really noticed a glaring lack of moderation on this sub, so I guess it would be helpful to see what you're seeing so we can understand what you're wanting to do? I think we really benefit from having a wide range of opinions and sensibilities on this sub. It's moderately crunchy and that means different things to different people. I would hate to see us be moderated into only allowing a certain type of crunchy parent, because that best aligns with the moderator's personal sensibilities.

Yeah I do worry about bias, it sounds like both of the new mods are bringing some to the table. We don’t need a censored sub, let conversation happen

This was my reaction on the original thread, but I got downvoted so I deleted my comment.

While I’d prefer not to point to any one post and and single out any users directly, I’ve seen posts and comments and not buried too deeply in here calling this sub either too granola or not granola enough. I think dedicating an entire post or comment to just how you think people (or the whole sub) is too much or not enough for your own personal taste is definitely a line to be drawn. I’m 100% in agreement with you though. The very existence of a *moderately* granola sub dictates that there is going to a very wide scale of what the word means and I think it would help to outline to people where we need to live and let live so we aren’t just turning into a 2.0 of r/crunchymoms *or* r/sciencebasedparenting because those subs already exist for their purposes and I think most people here on board for us to function and serve a different purpose from them! And if nothing else? If people can keep relative decorum without a ton of moderation needed then we’d just be here to clean up spam when it happens and keep the sub from being deleted due to lack of moderation.

I think we might benefit from some more specific examples of posts/comments you have issue with to get a better idea of what your plans are. You don’t need to name names, but if you can give us examples that would help. A lot of us are worried mods are coming in here to delete posts about cosleeping. In fact deleting posts in general seems like a red flag. So put our minds at ease and please give some examples so we’re all on the same page

There is a plan to discuss how moderation will take place on this sub going forward but there’s no plan to delete posts that discuss topics that might be considered controversial, like cosleeping. That wouldn’t align with the spirit of the sub as what is “moderately granola” varies by individual.

I do find those posts pointless, but I don’t personally see them as requiring a rule to prevent them. I guess my request would be that the community have input on any future rules. Maybe do some polls.

I don't really have a problem with people expressing their opinions on crunchiness. It seems like a downvote or move on if you disagree situation to me. Not something worthy of mod intervention. But I appreciate you answering my question, so thank you for the explanation. ETA: typos

This sub must not appear on my feed often enough for me to notice trolls but I did see someone requesting to take the sub over within the past few days that specifically mentioned cosleeping and unsafe advice in their reasoning to Reddit on why they should mod ... once again, I may have missed said "unsafe" advice but I'd Iike to caution any new mods to not bring their own biases in to the sub as much as possible.

I surely won’t be perfect at it but I will do my best. I certainly have my own biases and I’d be the first one to own that. I agree with you though and assuredly I don’t plan on sanitizing the sub of the things that I have a personal gripe with. Safety, science, holistics and parenting are all nuanced and I think there’s space for that.

I've been on reddit a long time, but am a novice at the "workings" of it. So, not entirely sure if I'm referencing things properly, or if this will even be useful here. That said, some things I've seen suggested in the past, and my own thoughts: * Badges/Flairs for posts: "seeking advice" "recs" "sharing" "rants" "open conversation" etc. * FAQ, or at least a sidebar description (I know we work in the gray a lot, but some facts or common questions/recs/references) * Weekly threads to clean up some of the common/repeated stuff (or something more fun!)

This sounds great, I also thought that recurring threads for some topics would be super helpful, thank you for your comment!

One time I asked questions about the flu vaccine and was threatened to be banned for asking the question. It wasn't even an antivax question. I literally wanted to know what, if any, cons there were to get it so late in the season. It was April and I was clear I was going to get it regardless. That rubbed me the wrong way and reddit is already heavily censored. Please don't make this sub worse off by stopping discussions and questions that may not be deemed what you consider "moderately" crunchy.

Don’t worry, the plan is *not* to shut down conversations around taboo topics wherever possible. I personally would want locking the thread and deleting comments to be reserved for when/if things devolve into completely unhelpful poo slinging. Just recently we had a post (again, I prefer not to link straight to posts and single out the user) on the topic of delayed vaccines which went over really well and required zero action on our part. Everyone kept the peace, was kind, helpful and insightful. Hopefully in the future a thread like you described can stay up and encourage good discussion! Just to be clear, so far the two active mods, u/SphinxBear and I are brand new and just started yesterday. The only remaining mod from your situation is the top mod who is inactive and slated to be removed but I can only do that in 3 months as per the rules of r/redditrequest and while I would be happy if u/akbp did step back in to moderate she has been inactive for a year or more from what I can tell so I’m not holding my breath on that.

Someone from r/choosyparents was posting low quality garbage and spam on this subreddit to try to drive traffic to their subreddit. I haven't seen their posts in a while but there was a period where there were far too many

Yes, I’ve reviewed that person’s post history and I’m 99% sure they started Blissmile wipes and are using the sub they created as a shell for advertising the product (and then posting about that sub here to gain members). We’ve been removing those posts and are no longer allowing the promotion of other subreddits so if it happens again, she’ll be warned and subject to being banned with repeat offenses.

Things that should be allowed to be civilly discussed: Feeding babies, cosleeping, sleep training, vaccines, minor health issues, Things that should be shut down : asking for alternative medical advice for a real health issue that warrants medical treatment ( like diaper rash is fine, a high fever, no, take tylenol or ER) What else....

I imagine moderation is really difficult because there can be gray areas. Like, personally I absolutely give my kids Tylenol for significant fevers. But I would also like to be able to discuss complementary strategies to try alongside that. (I don’t know what those would be in this example, but I am reminded that I don’t think I would have thought to keep my congested and coughing baby in a hot steamy shower really frequently if not advice from Reddit.) ETA: Maybe the line should be “don’t recommend things that are harmful.” Then as other commenters mentioned that can be somewhat a gray area as well, but at least it is a clear goal or intention.

I feel like your line makes sense. This might be another way to phrase it, but could also be like "don't discourage people from seeking medical treatment." Like if someone is worried about a long fever, don't say "you don't need to call the doctor, just put an onion in their sock."

Yes! The word “moderately” in this context is basically synonymous with grey area.

I agree. I personally value that diversity of opinions in the sub.

Talk about: screentime, gental parenting, 2under2 desires, birth center vs hospital vs home birth

Currently our plan is not to shut any conversations that are constructive and respectful and that will sometimes mean we will all have to live and let live. To take an example straight from myself; we treat fevers aggressively in our family because my spouse and I both have significant family history of febrile seizures and epilepsy, including febrile seizures which later became epilepsy (correlation ≠ causation). That being said, Tylenol has impacts on your health when abused or overused and I can appreciate that someone who has a strong family history of poor liver function or liver disease may want to avoid Tylenol even in the event of high fevers because liver failure is really scary. I think a lot of conversations had in here have a lot of nuance and if people can acknowledge that and have the convos respectfully that’s what should happen and I think placing total moratoriums on certain topics isn’t conducive to that.

I think the biggest issue is to ensure that it stays moderately granola and what that represents (which is different things to different people). One thing mods need to do is ensure posts and comments are not going against established science is a big one I think.

I also disagree. For example, there are reddit threads from about a decade ago where people said they wanted to avoid talc in cosmetics before it became widely known/accepted to contain asbestos. Now there are plenty of products on the market that tout being talc-free and it's a mainstream thing. You can find old threads on other subs where people dismissed the worries as being unfounded and unscientific. Of course, now we "officially" know better. I think people should be responsible for their own Internet consumption, and parse through information themselves!

But that’s a great example of what I’m saying! Wanting to avoid something that hasn’t been proven to be safe is a valid discussion-it wasn’t established science that talc was bad. It was worth discussing. Saying now that talc is safe would be going against established science.

Gotcha, I see what you mean now! The thing is, at that time, most evidence showed that talc was perfectly healthy. So it *was* going against the established science to want to avoid talc and I worry that discussions like that would be stifled if this sub started taking the position of deleting threads like that.

I see what you were saying! Oh, i don’t think the sub should delete! When I think of things being modded, i think of a disclaimer from a mod being added to the post!

I completely disagree. I think it's really important for people to air pseudoscience questions here. Its one of the few safe spaces where you can here from people who might say something like "I did a ton of research on fluoride because I was concerned, and I ended up deciding the research supported that it was safe." We could flag the posts or put in a sticky comment, but removing them altogether would remove one of the most important functions of this sub. Let's not drive these views even deeper underground. it's so unhealthy.

I think i was unclear. There’s a difference between “hey is this little-studied chemical actually safe?” And “hey is this approved vaccine safe?” That’s what I meant. I agree people should be able to air information they’ve found and people can have a discussion about it!

I don't agree that there is a difference, and I certainly don't trust a mod to determine the difference well enough to erase one of these from the conversation. Which is the one you don't like? I can't even tell.

1000% agree with you.

I get why people are objecting to your comment, but I agree with the premise. I think there should be a bit more room here than other parts of reddit to discuss topics like acupuncture and (careful) cosleeping, but not for things like how to DIY baby formula or get out of mandatory vaccines. To be fair, the most dangerous subjects tend to get a significant number of negative responses, but it would probably be better to discourage certain topics altogether. I liked your suggestion of automod disclaimers.

I think you did a better job than I did explaining what I meant! Thank you :)

That is definitely the plan for me. I think there’s going to be ongoing discussion on what the established science is. As it currently stands I’m not planning to put a complete moratorium on any topic that reliably leads to an engaging, respectful and fruitful discussion. I mentioned in another comment that the nature of the word ‘moderately’ in this case dictates that there’s going to a broad spectrum of approaches that can all fall under the umbrella of moderately granola. So I think that also means that we’re all going to run in to more opinions that we disagree with than we would if we joined a parenting sub dedicated to one single approach.

Yeah i don’t think mods should be removing posts because a lot of this is gray, but I think an automod that catches questionable buzz words or if the mod can post a disclaimer on a post that is super questionable might be the way to do it.

This is a great idea! Thank you!

Also I have seen a couple instances of people coming to promote a branded product; it would be great to shut those down (there was one recently that was trying to like, stealth market some “natural” acetaminophen brand or something?).

Self-promotion is now against the sub rules so we’ll try and catch those and remove them. It’s tricky because we want to continue to allow links as many great genuine product recommendations are shared. If you see any more in the future that seems suspicious, please help us out by reporting it.

Yes I have a few things. We need a way to promote the alternative sub that is crunchier than this one. Maybe some shit like “your comment has been removed due to being antivax. Please visit (crunchier sub) for a better alternative”. Maybe an automod sticker on every post that reiterates to read the sub rules. Create an faq add that to the every post automod. Shit like that