i wasn't a part of it, but what was so wrong with the thread that was just locked, the one that was about whether or not mods should be supervised?
it wasn't malicious. it wasn't threatening. it wasn't rude.
it was merely asking a question that i think lots of us are wondering too.
tsk tsk, mods. i suppose yall are going to lock this thread too since i'm questioning your power.
and i am genuinely wondering your motives behind locking that thread.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151303
eep... just realized this probably belongs in the moderation forum.. oh well
Kwangistar
07-06-2004, 23:47
I'm as 180 degrees opposed to most of the mods opinions on everything politically, but that dosen't mean that I can't read the rules and I won't support them.
Basically, when I read the rules I read that spam was going to be cracked down on. For the first few months I was here, it was rampant, including things like the "streaking". First, people acted like it was a big suprise that all the spam threads and members were being deleted. Now, recently, a big anti-mod wave has come talking about how they're all tyrants and closing threads is wrong, ect. Fact of the matter is, compared to a lot of boards that actually exist for the purpose of discussion, these guys are still rather leniant. Note how they repeatedly allow people to re-register after being deleted (Anthrus, TRA, ect.) and allow people like TRA to troll every time they log on.
When the administrators gave these guys the power to be mods, that basically allowed them to do what they want with the boards. That means that they can lock and delete the endless spam about moderator powers and "Abuse". Why'd they lock the thread? I don't know. Maybe they could predict that it would turn into another bitchfest about the moderators. Maybe they thought the general forum wasn't the right place to talk about that kind of stuff but rather via private messages or on another board.