Quote:
Originally Posted by crash_override
That's exactly the opposite if what my point has stated, so no. Stick to banning people who break the rules. Not banning based past and/or presumed future actions.
So there's no accountability and/or need for justification of actions within the mod community? That's how I'm reading that. I know it's hard supporting a **** decision, all I'm asking for is that people are treated fairly. I'm not trying to burn this mother down or anything; I just don't want the integrity of this forum, or it's leaders being put in jeopardy.
|
Not everything is a written rule. We are in charge of looking out for the good of the community, not just for enforcing written rules on the spot. Our integrity is not undermined when we do that.
Our actions don't need a board approval... but for bans of established members and other things, the mods do ask the other mods how they feel about it. Are we required to? No. We do it as a courtesy and out of respect for eachother's opinions. If one or more of us do not have an opinion on a certain matter, it doesn't invalidate the decision.
If one or more moderators have a problem with another mod's actions, we take it up with each other as we feel necessary.
I think you can pretty much put 2 and 2 together to figure out if there were any objections in this case.