  Millions of online communities are governed by volunteer moderators, who
shape their communities by setting and enforcing rules, recruiting additional
moderators, and participating in the community themselves. These moderators
must regularly make decisions about how to govern, yet it is challenging to
determine what governance strategies are most successful, as measuring the
`success' of governance is complex and nuanced. Furthermore, the incredible
diversity in community topic, size, and membership all but guarantee that there
is no `one-size-fits-all' solution for community governance. In this work, we
measure governance by assessing how community members publicly discuss their
own moderators. We quantify perceptions of moderators through 1.89 million
labeled posts and comments made on reddit over an 18 month period, and relate
these perceptions to characteristics of community governance and to different
actions that community moderators can take. We identify key differences between
different types of communities, and highlight promising strategies for
moderator teams. Amongst other findings, we show that positive perceptions of
moderators are associated with other measures of community health, and that
strict rule enforcement is perceived more favorably for certain topics, such as
news communities, than others. We investigate what kinds of moderators have the
most positive impact on the community when they join the mod team, and find
that moderators who are active community members before and during their mod
tenures result in the largest improvement of community members' perceptions of
moderators. We make all our models, datasets, and code public.
