I mean, you just listed a bunch of vague descriptors that would describe 90% of the community here if you asked someone who didn't like us about it.
KIA1 mods said that anyone who criticized moderation was a pathological little shithead just trying to stir trouble. I certainly wouldn't give them an out to just ban any criticism.
One of the purposes of hard defined rules with little wriggle room is to deny them real authority even if they manage to weasel into moderator positions.
Rest assured that moderators just ignore rules when it does not suit them. But if this is your view of good rules, then you should be really happy with DoM - because he is all about getting procedures and rules down and strictly following them.
Example: there was a user who started reporting other users on KiA2 TO THE ADMINS. Obviously, I permabanned him as soon as I saw that. Trying to destroy the place is as close to an unforgiveable crime you can get in that context. DoM disagreed, because "there is no rule against it". I regard it as common sense, and not even worth specifying, that you don't try to destroy the place where you comment.
then you should be really happy with DoM - because he is all about getting procedures and rules down and strictly following them.
I actually am, I'm someone here who will defend him. Except on his anti-stormfag position which (as he and I's long discussion last week can attest) I find the only time he doesn't maintain such by the book autism.
But, if I only have one complaint about a Janny then that's a pretty high bar met.
Though I do agree with you on that example. If only because survival comes before morality, so him getting us shutdown is a threat above the rules. Probably the only one I would consider superseding them.
I mean, you just listed a bunch of vague descriptors that would describe 90% of the community here if you asked someone who didn't like us about it.
KIA1 mods said that anyone who criticized moderation was a pathological little shithead just trying to stir trouble. I certainly wouldn't give them an out to just ban any criticism.
The most important factor of all is making sure 105-110 IQ types like the KIA moderators absolutely never have any real authority.
One of the purposes of hard defined rules with little wriggle room is to deny them real authority even if they manage to weasel into moderator positions.
Rest assured that moderators just ignore rules when it does not suit them. But if this is your view of good rules, then you should be really happy with DoM - because he is all about getting procedures and rules down and strictly following them.
Example: there was a user who started reporting other users on KiA2 TO THE ADMINS. Obviously, I permabanned him as soon as I saw that. Trying to destroy the place is as close to an unforgiveable crime you can get in that context. DoM disagreed, because "there is no rule against it". I regard it as common sense, and not even worth specifying, that you don't try to destroy the place where you comment.
I actually am, I'm someone here who will defend him. Except on his anti-stormfag position which (as he and I's long discussion last week can attest) I find the only time he doesn't maintain such by the book autism.
But, if I only have one complaint about a Janny then that's a pretty high bar met.
Though I do agree with you on that example. If only because survival comes before morality, so him getting us shutdown is a threat above the rules. Probably the only one I would consider superseding them.