The Newly Departed thread: announcements (departures)

[Angrboda]

What about the rest of it - the 'that' to which I was referring?

[example omitted]

The Staff have bent over backwards to be as equitable as possible in the necessary application of the Rules, so to have an attack like that on our character simply because we happened to have been chosen - for our fairness! - is quite simply pissing in our faces. You're ex-Staff; what is the worst thing one Mod or Admin can do acting unilaterally?

Decide not to act on a report.

That's it. Anything more dramatic can and will be overturned by the Staff body and the individual concerned retired.

I'm not arguing whether the criticisms are fair or not. That's not the point. The question is how mods should respond to such criticisms and complaints. You and I know that mods don't have that much freedom. But such responses are clearly meant to intimidate, regardless of that. Your response to the above seems to suggest that you think it's okay policy for mods to respond to criticism in such way. Are you suggesting this?

---

If a member accuses a mod of impropriety rather than asking a question, I would think it should be acceptable for the Admin/Mod to defend his/herself.

Such defenses inevitably tangle with the question of mod power when they occur, so I think it is poorly reflective of the forum as a whole when mods choose to get their hands in the dirt this way. I had always admired Stimbo for the cool and dispassionate way that he responds to asinine comments. I personally would think that is a better way to respond than an angry defense. If the mod were defending themselves as a person and not a mod, the question of its reflection on the forum wouldn't come up.

Anyway, I suppose this is just a difference of opinion as to how a mod 'should' respond to criticisms. I didn't mean to open a big furball.