Below is a direct message I have received from the above user.

(Copied to a number of mods:) I'd like your help as a trusted mod on the sitewide question of banning disreputable communities. I've proposed to u/C that the question is too important to limit to admin input alone, and that a transparent decision to ban would best be supported by community leaders acting formally so as to ensure circumspection and broad membership support. Since I've learned with C that "no news" means good news, I'm proceeding forward, and inviting you to participate in discussion in a new Scored forum shortly to open up (currently locked) at c/ReputationCampaign.

Please read the following proposed draft of the forum's welcome sticky: if you're willing to be part of such a panel to provide recommendations to the admins on this important community question, submitted for their approval, please let me know by Feb 28. By that time I will open and facilitate discussion toward conclusions (if any) on this question.

I've haphazardly sent this message to those qualified as described below and with whom I've had sufficient experience. I will try to reach the majority of qualified mods, but please pass this message on to other mods that you trust as well. Please write back if you want to have an active part in the discussion.

Volunteer Committee on Reputation Campaigns

This forum serves as a semiformal assembly of experienced moderators constituted for a primary purpose of analyzing the reputation-campaign clause of the Scored content policy. The moderators listed here are the so-far confirmed volunteer members of this panel assembly, and anyone else is free to comment on point as well. (Any use of moderator tools will be discretionarily applied, primarily to facilitate and maintain orderly discussion without disruption.)

The purpose of this assembly is to discuss and report on the question: "What should be the interpretation and case-use applications of the reputation-campaign rule of Scored content policy as informing a deletion of any entire Scored community?" Secondarily, the assembly may consider specific instances of any Scored community that has been publicly suggested by multiple testimonies as a test of this rule, or other interpretative policy issues.

Past admin comments indicate that any hypothetical community ban must be conducted with transparency at all levels: this suggests the initial stance that it should never occur except after a firm conclusion broadly held by a constituted panel, such as these volunteers. In this way an errant community is met, not by individuals acting alone, but by a proactively built leadership community in broad agreement. It is intended that this panel could then report its recommendations to the admin board, submitted for their approval, as the entire Scored population's formal voice through their societally delegated moderators. Final decisions would rest with the admins.

All moderators listed in the sidebar will have equal voice on the panel, along with any others that volunteer and meet the same base qualifications as follows. Anyone who has at least 1000 total Scores, has at least 3 months' activity, and is the moderator of a forum created Jan 2022 or earlier can contact the facilitator, SwampRangers, to be included on the panel. Reasonable attempt to contact all qualifying parties has been made. It is hoped that conclusions will be met with unanimity or broad consensus, but some votes may be taken among panel members to establish a record.

The motivation for this forum is to establish means by which every community member, and leaders in particular, can participate in a decision that affects the host's reputation and thus everyone. Admins are keenly aware of the probability of bad-faith forum creation, and of their need to remain at arm's length about determining what constitutes bad faith. Bad faith should never be assumed, but should only be concluded by a deliberative participatory process. The ReputationCampaign forum allows volunteer leaders to take this burden off the admins transparently and with the implicit support of the broad membership. The difficult decision to ban a community should never be engaged without leadership having the benefit of full consultation with those lower in chain of command. The structure was inspired by the similarity between the Content Policy hypothetical case and that of the orderly advice of Deuteronomy 13:12-18.

Comments in this thread will be an open discussion on the forum purpose. For orderliness, other than panel moderators, contributors should generally not start new posts in this forum except by prior permission from a panel moderator. Nondisruptive commenting will generally remain free.