And along your logic I also can't compare a chimpanzee to a gorilla, since chimpanzees are not gorillas. Mods in this case can be either the chimpanzees or gorillas. Either will do, though I admit preference for the chimp.
The point of my entire post was when a mod to break the rules a tiny bit in order to attempt to amicably restore order to the situation, it is neither hypocritical nor infraction-worthy. What part of what I said is not leading to that point for you?
I'm more than happy to elaborate; I can be pretty long winded when I need to be. For you to say that a mod is breaking the rules when they post in a thread and trying to do their jobs, to me, is just silly. Yes, a post telling everyone to stop posting off topic likely has little to do with the actual topic they should be discussing.
But it's the most minimal amount of moderation possible. It's less than warnings, less than infractions and way less than bans. What would you prefer? Laissez-faire style modding in which anything goes and all off topic posting and spam are allowed as much as posters want? Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but that's not going to be the case. Some amount of moderation is necessary for these boards.
If you don't agree and you want no modding at all, then I'm sorry, but you're simply not going to get your way.
I am curious, though. What, in your mind, should forum moderation be like? Apparently you don't want mods to post in the thread telling people to follow the rules when necessary. But you also want less warnings and infractions. Tell me, good sir. What, then, should we do? The amount of moderation on a forum is variable. The more you guys observe basic decency towards one another, the less we have to do. We don't moderate the same amount if people are following the rules.
You want less appearance from mods? Less posts where we "break the rules"? Less infractions/warnings?
Follow the rules more. Solved.
