There's also a rule against thread necromancy.

Really?

Will you change from First Person to Third Person Narrative for the Big Apocalyptic Trilogy?

It's a long time over-due, but thank you. I'm now spoiler-tag free and feeling good...

It would also make it easier for the mods to mod.

It would be kind of difficult to abdicate more than once.

Indeed, that's what I get for changing my mind mid-sentence.

Operation: Distract them with potatoes until the argumentative people lose their steam has been a success.

We may now proceed with theories on Mab Carpenter.

Dammit we've been had!


I think it's been mentioned somewhere that only one of the Queens has abdicated once, maybe Molly is her replacement? 

About the idea of increasing the number of mods:

I think that there's a possibility of creating mod-envy, in the same way we see BETA-envy on the boards, with requests to become Beta-readers and such.

This could become a problem.

But it could also be harnessed to encourage better behaviour.*Strokes newly formed beard*

In another forum that I won't name, a similar effect was created, to the point that a FAQ was needed on the conditions of being named moderator, because the mods got sick of repeating themselves. It seems as though the fact that people respect the mods, and the presence of a slight possibility of becoming one, can give people some carrot to moderate their own comportment.

It is the only Forum I know that has fewer incidences of flame-war and other bad behaviour than here, this despite the fact that it's purpose is specifically to gather people of many native tongues, cultures and viewpoints.

I've nicked some of the guidelines from the FAQ, not to tell you what to do, just as humble suggestions in the event that I'm wrong and you are actually human.

Who are the moderators?
They are ordinary members (or “foreros”, in forum slang) who have been invited by the administrative team to take on a temporary assignment. They are unpaid volunteers who help maintain order in the forums, in addition to participating in the forums as regular members.


How are moderators chosen?
When there are openings on the administrative team, current moderators suggest and discuss candidates. The administrator makes the final decision, considering these requirements:
- Very active in the forums, available and willing;
- Highly capable in the languages of the forums they are to moderate;
- Easy to work with and very helpful, especially with beginners;
- Collaborative with both moderator staff and fellow members;
- Serious, trustworthy and obviously dedicated to the _____ Mission.

Where can moderators moderate?
Each moderator is responsible for one or two forums or subforums. All moderators have the ability to moderate in any forum, but they generally moderate only in their assigned forums.

Why do moderators have different titles than other members?
Each moderator is free to choose his or her own title.

What do moderators do?
Moderators keep the forum clean, organized and running smoothly. Their duties include:
- Reading threads to ensure that posts are cordial, collegial, on-topic and not chatty, and that they follow rules of punctuation and capitalization;
- Merging or deleting duplicate posts and threads;
- Responding to report-a-post messages from members;
- Moving misplaced threads to the appropriate forum;
- Closing or removing threads that are outside the scope of a forum;
- Changing thread titles for clarity;
- Deleting advertising and “spam” posts;
- Editing posts as necessary, to fulfill the mission of the forums;
- Banning members, when necessary;
- Asking posters for context and complete sentences;
- Sending private messages to members;
- Answering threads like any other member.

How can the  community help the moderator team?
All members are encouraged to direct moderators to any post or thread that needs attention. Just click on the red triangle in the upper right-hand corner of the post you wish to report.

Do moderators work as a team?
The moderators collaborate as much as possible. Because moderators are in different time zones and have responsibility for different forums, they tend to work independently. Each forum has its own customs and practices, so moderator actions may vary from one forum to the next.

Can moderators be disciplined just like other members? By whom?
Moderators must abide by the rules, just like other members. Their posts can be reported by members and are subject to moderation by other moderators. If disciplinary action is warranted, it is carried out by the administrator.

What do I do if I disagree with a moderator action?
Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome via email or private message, but should not be discussed in the public forums. This is out of respect for the members and moderators involved.
If you don’t understand or agree with a moderator’s actions, send a private message to that moderator or another moderator that you trust. Your complaints and suggestions are welcome and will help us improve the  forums.

Did we ever get this statement sorted out?


"Who NEVER uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want? = Who wouldn't use whatsoever power they have to get what they want."

Because they do not equal each other. "Who NEVER uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want? = Who is so pure that they have NEVER, EVER used power to get what they want?"

Cause I my eyes start to glaze over when people argue different arguments and they think they're arguing the same point.

They're partially similar, but you're right that they're not equivalent. Let's break it down to symbolic logic. I'll try to do it with words:
1) People have power. Innate ability, strings to pull, manipulation, etc. - everyone has access to a broad variety of tools to accomplish a given task. Whether or not they have chosen to use all or even most of those powers is, for the sake of the current discussion, irrelevant; the important point is that they have these powers available to them. For the moment, let us not consider powers that are available to them but of which they are actually unaware.
2) People want things, situations, etc.; there are conditions that they, at least in principle, find to be desirable.
3) Some of the powers/methods to get those desired things are less than kosher, at least by the ideals of society in principle.
4) There is a sliding, often HIGHLY subjective scale of kosherness that people are willing to sacrifice or ignore in order to obtained the desired things. Let us assign an arbitrary 0-to-10 scale of kosherness, 0 being inarguably saintly or noble or whatever, 10 being stated by pretty much everyone to be awful, psychopathic, evil or some such.
5) The first question, then, is whether there's anyone who would never venture above zero on the kosherness scale to achieve a desired thing. The second question is really a rhetorical restatement of the first, but with the subtle difference of being a thinly-veiled statement that the answer to the first question would be no. In the end, however, they point towards the same rhetorical device of a conclusion.

If the two of you weren't so far away I'd kiss you both. In a manly way.

Uh, a VERY manly way