GYBS wrote:Quick question-when it comes to issuing cards or bans etc do the mods have a chat about it or is it down to that one mod ?
This is actually a key question because it speaks to the whole issue of accountability. As such, I'll add to what Woof has already said.
Contrary to what some may think, cards are not distributed lightly and rarely go undiscussed. In fact, the only time Mods don't discuss cards or bannings is when one of is dealing with an obvious WUM (wind-up merchant).
For the less obvious "potential" WUM, we very much have a discussion. In the Mod section we have a "keep an eye on..." thread where we discuss posters who don't quite seem legit, who could be an alter-ego of a known WUM, who might be a supporter of another team sneaking on to take the p!ss subtly, etc. This thread is hugely important because it allows us to flag potential problems and build consensus. It's also hugely important because it ensures that we aren't too quick to ban newbies who aren't WUMs--they just happen to be a bit out of step with the general board culture.
The other, much more challenging, group that receives cards/bannings are established posters. It's a huge issue carding regulars because they've established their place in the Newkit community, because they have mates who like them around and/or enemies that want to see them punished for real or perceived infractions and, because we've had dealings with them too--in many cases, both as Mods and before we took on the job. In short, there is no way that giving a regular a card or banning them doesn't cause some sort of reaction on the board.
As such, there's not one Mod among us who would give a card to a regular lightly and who wouldn't want to discuss matters with other Mods. As such, we have a thread in the Mod section where we discuss our decision to card people. In some cases, we discuss the matter before giving out a card but it is a rare thing to be able to do that: events unfold quickly sometimes and there's sometimes no other Mods around to discuss the matter with. We make certain, however, to discuss these decisions after the fact and to explain why we acted in the way we did. Usually within a day or two most Mods have had a chance to log on and weigh in on the matter and that's where the vetting comes in. If the decision is sound, the mod who gave the card is told so--which is an important counterweight to the questioning PMs we often receive when we card a regular member. If the decision is harsh, hasty, too personal or otherwise suspect, however, the other Mods will say so and, where appropriate, action will be taken to reverse the decision. So, yes, we support each other and respect each other but that doesn't mean we don't disagree with each other over decisions.
So, to bring a long post to the point, the Mods as a collective already vet major decisions and take steps to ensure that we're being as fair and as objective as we possibly can be. Another level of 'bureaucracy' would not make the system run smoother or increase accountability, IMHO, but I welcome the discussion, if only because it provides a chance to clear up some misperceptions about 'maverick mods' accountable to no one.
