My thoughts on mod corruption
(Edited version of my monster post in off-topic…)
The so called “mod-corruption” debate is driving me crazy. I mean basically we are treating everyone equally where naturally we will be more prone to pay more attention to members we have seen post, or who are labeled respected, rather than a junior member. I mean does the term “repected” not mean anything to anyone any more? The whole concept of respectedness is that the member has proven themselves worthy of having a different colored title and giving out rep, whereas a junior member needs to build that foundation of trust that other members have in him like the rest of us once did. I say bans should be based on how reliable the member is, while mantaining the said law of how bad the offense was.
If a super respected member that’s been on here and is everyone’s best bud can just get banned the first time off that’s kind of crazy, I think a warning should be good enough to let them know what’s up. Then you have a junior member who posts something they know they’re not supposed to, we should ban them for maybe a few days, just to start them off, as you would discipline a child. In the case of minor offense I think the juniors as well as respected members should just get a warning. Just needed to get that off my chest…
