> I am not sure how you deal with opinionated debates with the Automod.
Have firm rules about what is and is not allowed. Match comments for keywords and set rules for how you want such comments to be dealt with. Doing it this way eases moderation by having to review the mod log more often than the mod queue and approve false positives, which as you refine your automod rules, there will be less of.
> It also depends on daily active members (we get about 5.6k DAU on weekly average i.e these people are upvoting/commenting at least. I hope these numbers scale linearly for you
One of the subs I mod is for a very active and polarizing TV show, so it's much mroe active when the show is on, but yes, easily that amount of DAU.I take the view that voting doesn't matter at all, only rule breaking content. I prefer to have a police of minimal interference and suggest users block people they disagree with. Only rule breaking content need be dealt with.
> We have automod set up but given how strong opinions can be on heuristic driven scientific areas, I'd be careful not to make it rule based. People will be kicking each other's comments out.
You can use it irrespective of users, just have it match patterns and take action based on that. It's very very capable honestly. Reviewing the mod log for false positives is much easier in many ways.
> we simply can't do it with how flammable it gets.
Can you honestly say you understand the full extent of what automod can do before you say that? It's not just a simple tool, it allows for complex pattern matching and actions based on that. I mod the subs pretty much myself due to being 'always online', and I keep rejecting other people asking to be mod because I managed to do everything needed with automod and supervision. FWIW the community also says they are impressed with how well the sub is run.