[NotPractical]

I imagine that (thoughtfully) moderating a site as large as HN is no easy task, and though I'm all for more transparency, I think logs like that have the potential to open a whole can of worms and add much more burden on Dan. All of a sudden you get a bunch of HN posts that solely exist to criticize Dan's decisions which clog up the feed. If a rule is added against this it looks like even more censorship.

Lobsters [1] has mod logs, but it also has a much smaller community, and it's invite-only so there's less need for moderation in the first place.

[1] https://lobste.rs/moderations

[ilyt]

I don't think logs are needed in community moderated by single person, don't need logs to know who did what.

But for something like Reddit when there is more mods the anonymity basically means impunity to any judgement; nobody but mods themselves can say whether a certain bias in actions can be attributed to few mods or to everyone in the mod team.

And frankly if you can't handle a critique of your actions you shouldn't be moderating actions of others in the first place