Perhaps there should only be specific species of moderators with defined mandates, and nothing else.
There has to way be a way to maximize user freedom, and minimize moderator cock-blocking.
It's disheartening to see things deleted or prohibited due to obscure and arbitrary moderator preferences.
A hierarchy of authority might be.
Site creators.
Programmers.
Subverse algorithm implementors.
Contributors.
Moderators.
Lurkers.
Disruptors.
Spammers.
A moderator might be also be a contributor to his subverse, and indeed, that is his most more important contribution, unless he is also a programmer or process enabler.
Clumsy and heavy handed curating is almost always far beyond the ken of your typical social bookmark moderator.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Torvor 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
An effective moderator uses persuasive arguments to set healthy and sustainable community mores.
[–] Torvor 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
A moderator interested in ruling will delete unwanted submissions and comments and exclude undesired conversations.
A moderator interested in leading and building a community will find a productive way to deal with out of scope activity by, for example, suggesting improvements to the contribution, pointing out more successful comments, or offering a more appropriate subverse, but will respect the community's ability to follow the articulation of the subverse.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] Torvor 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Err...