In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:
I just think it is silly Kimmi is all worked up of this. I am really trying understand her point of view but I just can't. I really don't get it nor care enough to have her explain.
Joe, here are some posts of yours to Mod2, aka Pumpsie, before you became a mod yourself.
1. About the unfair/inconsistent moderating:
"So you delete the post pointing out your unwillingness to enforce the same set of rules on everyone? What is the point of moderation if you are going to use it to target certian people? I think Bill should be banned but there are others much worse and nothing is ever done. This is silly. This post is so patronizing. It is not just about religion and politics, it is mean spirited poster who try to make sure they get there way here because they can't in real life. They are extremely hostile. "
2. About the manner in which the mods were nominated and selected, and how they discussed moderating issues off site with fellow posters within their frat:
"This is bad S5. Some sites let the users vote on mod regularly to make sure the mods are reflective of what the actual users want on a board. Here we don't know they are and they have added a third non mod to the decision making process. So this isn't democratic, nor our the owners have the site pick who regulates their board anymore. So now the mods have more power than either stakeholder group."
Apparently, before you became a mod, your point of view was exactly the same as my point of view, which for some reason, you now can't understand. The only difference is, I never insisted the mods reveal their identities because I already knew who they were, although I thought it was a good idea for them to do so.
You had the same concerns that I had regarding the forum moderation. And now that you are a mod, selected by the other two mods in a non-democratic manner, my concerns are silly. Sounds a little hypocritical, if you ask me.