Originally Posted by
miamijim
...but there must be a certain amount of unexplained power....I use the parent/child analogy because it best fits.
I strongly disagree with your analogy. Forum moderators are not the parents and members are not children. The relationships between the two pairs are infinitely different. Moderators do not love members with the unconditional affection of a parent. Moderators do not share genetic or hormonal ties with members. Moderators are the enforcers of rules, and members are those who agree to abide by them. You are hall monitors, police officers, prison guards, but not parents.
Originally Posted by
miamijim
If members abided by forum policy there'd be no need for moderation.
There's a lot of room for subjective interpretation in that sentence, both with regards to whether a member is abiding by policies and what level of moderation is appropriate.
Which is the problem with rules and those who enforce them: interpretation. But a lot of these inherent problems resolve themselves through process of appeal, which is not available to BF members. Which, to bring this all around to my original post, is the problem. Lack of transparency. Lack of accountability. And now, I can add lack of outlet for appeal (according to the Forum Guidelines).