I've been discussing this topic (more specifically, this set of inter-related topics) for many years now--on this site and on others. I'd like to make a couple of points.
First, contrary to what was posted above, operating as a moderator was never easy for Charles: it was damned hard work, and not intrinsically satisfying. Charles, to his great credit, established, expanded and ran this site without much payback aside from the satisfaction of contributing tremendously to the backcountry skiing community. We should all be thankful for what he accomplished, whether or not we agreed with the way he set up and ran the site. No one should make the mistake of imagining that it came easy.
Marcus has continued where Charles left off. The site has, as I understand it, been far more trouble than he anticipated when he took it on, and much of this excess of trouble relates to issues of moderation. Marcus is not getting rich doing any of this. He has a life to pursue outside Turns All Year. He is doing this as a favor to the rest of us, individually and in community. We owe him bigtime--again, regardless of our views on this or that style of moderation. Furthermore, anyone who cannot tell that Marcus, like Charles before him, is bending over backwards to be fair in all significant respects might think about paying closer attention.
Marcus, I trust you'll read this and correct me if I'm wrong in any notable respect about any of the above.
The community standards, to which each and every one of us agreed before ever posting here, seem fairly clear to me. They exclude, for example, certain language which I've seen in this thread, as well as certain other posting behaviors which I've seen in increasing abundance elsewhere, in other threads. There are reasons for these standards which, as it happens, I don't care to debate here. Whether you agree with them or not, they are what they are. Like many here, I happen to like them and hope to see them fairly and consistently enforced.
In my view, stating standards and then failing to enforce them with appropriately-scaled consequences is precisely equivalent to stating their opposite. A failure to enforce stated limits says rather efficiently, "I'm telling you these are the rules, but I don't really mean it. Therefore, do as you please with regard to these rules and any others." Small children are very adept at grasping this sort of subtext; they understand immediately that certain grownups make all sorts of pronouncements without really meaning them, and that they are therefore free to disregard those adults. For better or worse, adults are no less sophisticated at deciphering subtexts and responding accordingly. Some adults, along with some children, seem to specialize in pushing limits--trying to find out whether stated standards are real and solid, or just empty words. We've seen a lot of this on Turns All Year.
For this reason, all else aside, I favor stronger moderation....or weaker standards, if that is the community preference (which I gather it is not). I've been fascinated watching Marcus' style of moderation, which clearly has certain advantages and disadvantages over other styles we've seen here (including my own), but in the balance I prefer the results achievable through more aggressive moderation--that is, quick and decisive application of consequences following posts which do not follow stated standards. I believe that the absence of this kind of moderation will at best make the site more and more effort to run (and correspondingly less and less rewarding), while driving off a great many members whose participation I value greatly. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the driving-off process is already well under way here, and others posting in this thread have confirmed my belief. I hope the process can be stopped.
I post regularly on a number of other internet forums related to other subjects. These forums all feature moderation to enforce conformity with established community standards. The norm in all cases is that violators are first warned, then posts are erased, then members are suspended and finally banned. Banning is remarkably uncommon (except in cases of outright commercial spam) considering the numbers involved: that's because warnings and edited posts are used a lot, and people either behave according to community standards or get frustrated and leave. This style of moderation is generally appreciated by participants who are, after all, self-selected for their adherence to community norms. I patronize these sites because they are generally respectful, supportive and informative.
Of course, the same issues come up on these other sites, and the same arguments are made. Moderation is always fraught with judgment calls and concerns about fairness. That's ok. It'll never be perfect, even for any single one of us--much less for everyone.
I'm pretty sure that's enough out of me.
Mark
