Pierre said:The minute somebody starts their sentence with "so what you are actually saying" they're putting words in my mouth... or as they'd said themselves... rejecting my reality and replacing it with their own... but whatever.
Pierre said:Of course admission and participation in the forum is unrelated to membership fees, but with that being the case, doesn't it make sense that committee membership also remain unrelated to forum moderation.
Pierre said:Objective moderation is a common thought and the implied connotation to gamergate is irrelevant.
dammit said:My thoughts on the moderator objectivity issue. Moderators are here to enforce the rules of the forum/community. This forum/community is represented by the committee - therefore those two roles (committee and moderator) are held tightly together. The committee should have the authority to set the rules that are enforced by moderators while moderators have the right to represent the community and question those rules. And the community has right to question those rules. This is why we get to nominate and vote for our committee - the individuals we believe have our community's best interests at heart and can make the best decisions. Not necessarily the decisions loved by all.
francoisvn said:The only appropriate punishment on forums should be immediate moderation action such as bans or such, not extended "feuds."