rk> ... if a hub leader thinks a post should be deleted or a user should be banned, he should never do it by himself

I agree with the collaborative stance on banning a user; that is the common practice before there were a dozen-ish moderators. In the early days FJ, Oogee, and I (as the only hub leaders) would have had some back-and-forth about it in each-and-every instance. easier to do with three than eleven.

this may still be the case amongst the larger group of hub leaders, since, as FJ pointed out this morning, the recent action to ban WK was not processed by him (I confirm such is the case, but I was not directly involved).

a collaborative approach also makes when processing violations: it's generally bad form for a moderator to routinely process a violation they themselves report, although I could see some exemptions, e.g. something reported that is clearly inflammatory. there is less harm in this when the action is to warn the violating user than when the decision is made to ban them.

however, removing off-topic messages from the main forum -- especially those that are otherwise clutter -- should be at the discretion of an individual moderator (if only for workload, on some days!).

some are going to be more strict than others, and perhaps this is a good and worthwhile thing, if only to break the habit of incessantly posting off-topic content in the on-topic area, without jeopardizing the occasional dog, football, or etc. levity that inoffensively adds colour and character to the community.

that this is even being discussed, is a sign that overall, the moderation efforts here at Agoracom take the shape of a benevolent meritocracy, rather than being a foul malevolent dictatorship the StockHouse cesspool crowd claim it to be.

GLAL,

R.