Originally posted by Curtis
I believe that there's going to continue to be an enormous reluctance to overule a decision once made. No one wants to contradict a friend, or make them look bad in a public forum, and that's understandable, but it means that in practice moderators are likely to prove to be independant Barons. I'd rather see them as part of a parliament. If you must keep this heirachy thing, why not have mods be required to check their decisions with the super-mods BEFORE they enact them? That would improve consistency.


This is one issue that Gary and I will be discussing with the moderators soon.

As it stands right now, the moderators have autonomy to do what they want in their own threads. However, important or controversial decisions are to be discussed and made democraticly.

We're not trying to indiscriminately mete out justice swiftly and blindly, we're trying to be more efficient. There's a difference.

I have no qualms about contradicting any moderator on these forums, even Finding_Fantasy, but I'm not going to do it unless I feel there's a good reason for it.

A democratic heirarchical structure will, in the long run, help the members, not murt them. Especially if we start having more members sign up tot he site. And that's what we're looking at is the eventual signing up of more and more people. We want to get the threads covered now so that when we have another thousand members or so, we're not left playing catch-up.