Learn more: Our Approach to Post Moderation: Ensuring Fairness and Focus

In our vibrant Slack community, the principle of fairness and the goal of maintaining a focused and organized environment are paramount. This necessitates a proactive approach to moderating posts that may not align with our community guidelines. Here's why we opt to remove posts and directly message (DM) the author with suggestions for editing and reposting, rather than merely asking for edits:

  1. Timeliness of Moderation: Not all members check Slack daily. A post that violates guidelines could remain visible for an extended period before the author sees our request for edits and acts on it. This delay risks other community members perceiving a lack of consistency in rule enforcement, potentially undermining trust in our commitment to fairness.
  2. Activity and Volume: As activity within our space has increased, we find ourselves removing approximately 4-5 posts weekly that don't adhere to our policies. These removals are standard practice, intended to maintain the relevance and order of discussions, not to pass judgment on the content or its creator.
  3. Community Size and Engagement: With over 2,500 advocates, of whom 500-700 log in weekly, it's critical to establish policies that foster inclusivity while efficiently serving the community's needs. Our community members, 80% of whom work full-time in animal advocacy, have expressed a strong preference for relevance and organization in our user interviews and community surveys.
  4. Risk of Overwhelm: Feedback has highlighted that without swift and equitable policy implementation, the space can become overwhelming. This risks members disengaging permanently, a fate that has befallen other Slack communities. While it's noted that posts in less active regional channels might seem less disruptive, the interconnectedness of our community means that the standards of one channel reflect on the collective experience across all channels.

Our moderation strategy is designed with the community's best interests at heart, striving for a balance between inclusivity and the need for an organized, engaging space where all members feel valued and respected. We appreciate each contribution and aim to guide authors in reshaping their messages to align with our guidelines, ensuring that every voice can be heard in a manner that enriches our collective advocacy efforts.