Originally Posted by
miamijim
You know exactly where I'm coming from on the parent/child analogy......and to edit a quote of yuors.. 'parents are the enforcers of the rules, and children are are those who agree to abide by them.
I honestly don't, but accept our difference of interpretation. The analogy really isn't the key issue here so I'm letting that particular disagreement disappear.
Originally Posted by
miamijim
Very simply, if member isnt sure if his or her actions is appropriate he or she should ask a moderator first. If a member is sitting at keyboard comtemplating an action that action shouldnt be taken. Plain and simple.
I don't disagree. But in my hypothetical, UserX never questioned his actions because, per his assessment of the situation, no wrongdoing was occurring.
Originally Posted by
miamijim
Trust me, there's accountabilty on the moderators. Accountabilty is handled behing closed doors and its during those accountability 'sessions' that interpretation of the rules is clarified. If you think us moderators get run free I've got news for you.....we're moderated just as members are.
I understand the need for private discussions in which the actions of moderators are questioned. A fallacy of leadership is admonishing those entrusted to enforce rules in front of those charged with following them. I'm not asking for full disclosure on every detail; however, I do ask that revelations such as this - that someone "watches the watchers" - are important and should be disclosed to the membership.
Originally Posted by
miamijim
Let me ask you a question. What exactly is it that you'd like to do or say on this forum that your not allowed to now?
I'd like the freedom to question the moderators and get answers where appropriate.
Can I do that now? Sure, but the threat of sanction exists which isn't really "freedom", it's "permission".
Have access to a clearly stated progression of sanctions (e.g. "Threads get locked when they cross this threshold. Threads get deleted when they cross that threshold").