Good article. It does describe the motivation for inaction really well. We'll see what comes out of the moderation discussion, which is definitely taking its time. I think it will probably be another couple of months before we have a consensus on what policies will be enforced (a bunch of community discussions which seem to take a month a piece will have to transpire before we get there). Only 92 people filled out the survey, but as a sample that should be large enough to determine significant patterns.

So mods don't really have many tools at their disposal. We can delete and we can ban. Supposedly being a mod confers some kind of prestige that we should be able to use to influence behavior using soft power (eg just warning that some behavior is unacceptable in a comment) but I don't know if that's the case around here.

The community is really divided on what should and should not be moderated. The reporting mechanism reflects that, although barely anyone seems to report as it is. The way I would like to see it work is that a post or comment would need to tally 3 or 4 reports before a mod intervenes, and then they would use their discretion to decide how far to go with enforcement (start with discussion, ban as a very last resort). In reality, I don't think we've ever had a post or comment that has tallied more than 2 reports. A ban should probably require the consent of more than one moderator.

As far as the well-kept garden metaphor goes, is that really what you want? I look at some of the subs that could qualify as such and they look a bit stale (/r/Buddhism, even the /r/zensangha experiment). If it is what you want, and even if it isn't, Id like to hear how you think moderators should take a more active role here (specific examples appreciated).