It should be noted that "Mods 1" is not officially reinstated. A quick scan of the community info shows who the sole maintainer is. (And given recent events, the continued use of a shared user account as a tool for moderation represents a certain type of risk to all but one of the users sharing that account. The people sharing that account should take this into consideration.) Also, it should be noted that "Mods 1" will not contain at least 2 of the former mods, carl_sagan and pooperman.
1. Nobody owns communities. Communities are maintained by maintainers. Ownership is restricted to user accounts. That is the technically-correct LJ admin answer. A community is not an account. It has no password. This is true even if you gift a subscription to it. That said, the members of the community--which includes the maintainers--own the community in a nontechnical rhetorical sense.
2. Posts like this from posters like anosognosia. Now, he didn't need to be made a moderator to do this, but he did need to be assured that people like carl_sagan were not out to get him by holding 2/3 warnings over his head (both warnings given for one quite minor infraction, would have been a full ban had carl_sagan gotten his wish, one of the two sub-infractions never fully proven and still denied), waiting for him to trip up so he could get him good.
3. Nothing.
4. Yes.
5. I agree with busbeytheelder's point above. I think a way to mitigate this weakness is to do things like he did with this post, which was to delete it and ask for it to be moved here.
1. Nobody owns communities. Communities are maintained by maintainers. Ownership is restricted to user accounts. That is the technically-correct LJ admin answer. A community is not an account. It has no password. This is true even if you gift a subscription to it. That said, the members of the community--which includes the maintainers--own the community in a nontechnical rhetorical sense.
2. Posts like this from posters like anosognosia. Now, he didn't need to be made a moderator to do this, but he did need to be assured that people like carl_sagan were not out to get him by holding 2/3 warnings over his head (both warnings given for one quite minor infraction, would have been a full ban had carl_sagan gotten his wish, one of the two sub-infractions never fully proven and still denied), waiting for him to trip up so he could get him good.
3. Nothing.
4. Yes.
5. I agree with busbeytheelder's point above. I think a way to mitigate this weakness is to do things like he did with this post, which was to delete it and ask for it to be moved here.
Reply
Leave a comment