</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
No, I do not feel I carry any power, we are not "police", ha!ha!

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

On that, I have to disagree with you. What one group of people perceives as fair and equitable application of Psych Central policies, another group of people may perceive as biased and judgmental enforcement of personal preferences that selectively cite policies to support the personal opinion.

It is well within the policies for mods to censor threads for any reason that their judgment tells them to do so. It is well within the policies for such decisions to be nontransparent, secret, unexplained.

It should not be startling, however, when members and visitors question judgments that are not explained. During the 1970s, cities that experienced demonstrations and riots often started offices of Rumor Control. These offices were intended to offer the truth about what was going on, so that twisted rumors didn't stir up rioting. Today, the wisdom about Crisis Management that is that it is best to get the truth out quickly -- truth about the situation and how it is being contained officially -- so that rumors don't breed.

The site is not a democracy, not does it need to be. To that extent, I support the position that if I, or anyone, doesn't like life around here, get another life or site that I do like.

Yet, we live in a democracy with increasing, not decreasing transparency. So questioning decisions that may seem inexplicable to some of us, disagreeable to others, unwarranted to another contingent, are predictable responses. Just as it is predictable that another group will be strong supporters of the decision.

This seems a good place to insert a disclaimer that this post is not intended to hurt anyone, nor the Forums, but is in the spirit of conversation that is being carried on, with people expressing various positions that are not agreed upon by everyone.

To sum up my position: Mods have authority, whether or not individual mods want to acknowledge it. Mods decisions are made in a quasi-public forum. It is to be expected that such decisions will be perceived differently by different people and that discussion will result. With authority comes the possibility of abuse, and public discussion is likely to consider, in any given instance, whether unfairness, poor judgment, etc., has occurred.

It's the nature of the beast, and I don't see how disagreement might ever be eliminated, nor that it would be desirable to do so. I also believe that even the illusion of transparency goes a long way to quiet people.

So it goes.