A tiny number of people have offered opinions. And, in contrast, they have not offered any proof that their magical community management theories will work any better than the ones we've developed over a decade (which, looking around, are working pretty darn well - we have a lively, active community of over 100,000 members; obviously we're doing something right). It's easy to be an "armchair general", as they say. That's not to say our methods are perfect, but we have a decade of evidentiary weight saying they're pretty good, while your competing theory has no more than conjecture.
Your main difference with our belief lies in this statement:
"Frequent violation of rules by moderators strip them of any moral credibility when attempting to enforce said rules."
There are three problems with that statement:
- Moderators are not violating rules; they simply have more powers than you do. One of those powers is to use stronger language than you are allowed to use. That's because we have observed it works.
- Usage of these powers clearly does not strip them of any credibility, because they still function well. If your statement were true, the entire board would be anarchy.
- Your interjection of "morality" into the equation leads me to believe that you see the moderators as something they're not. They aren't moral leaders, teachers, social engineers, judges, therapists, counsellors, or arbitrators of fairness - they are enforcers. Their function is simple: to keep the peace. That's it. If you require more than that, our little RPG messageboard is not the place you'll find it.
That'll be me.
It's clear you think differently to us on this issue, and that's fine. But clearly we do disagree.
