This is just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

It was brought up in another thread (that I have removed myself from contributing to) that moderators here should remain above the fray. For myself, I don't think that moderators need to stop posting their opinions by virtue of their position.

The only time that I would envision a problem is if the moderator posted an opinion, somebody else disagreed and then the moderator bans that individual or uses their position to squelch opposition to their opinion. I have yet to see anything remotely approaching that here, far from it. It may mean that those people who disagree may very well choose their words far more carefully in replying (something that would probably be a good idea for all...myself included).

That isn't censorship, rather polite conversation.

There are times that we all feel like shouting at somebody else "are you f*&^!#* kidding me"...two mitigating factors should interject themselves in such situations. Would you say it to that persons face? The general public sees us as nerds/geeks that live in our parent's basement that don't have a life...shouting at the few people with whom we share something in common with is pretty self defeating.

For the record...
I don't live in my mom's basement. Unlike Marilyn Manson...roleplaying didn't stave off me having sex by 6 weeks for each game that I played. Marilyn...come on...truthfully I think that there were far more pressing reasons why you remained a virgin than playing D&D.

To paraphrase from the comedian Johnny Biscuit, "I am not just posting this to suck up to you (Admins)."

Uhh, okay. *shrugs*

Wonder what people would say if a mod were arguing for x and because another poster also arguing for the very same x overstepped the line the moderator had to reign that other poster in a bit . .

They would keep vewy vewy quiet about it until they can figure out a way to turn it to their advantage. It's politics and even Dumpshock has got its own brand of it.

It's happened. We issued a warning.

I am on three different game forums(Here, batteltech, and the Alderac forums, primarily focusing on L5R), and used to be on the White-Wolf Forums before their change over.
Here is what I have seen:

On the Battletech Forums, the mods are all well known, friendly, and get into discussions, and you can easily forget sometimes that they are Mods, except for
the Red 'Mechs under their names. We all know, though, that the Mods are(relatively) neutral. There are a couple people we sometimes wonder why they don't get
warnings/bans...but, then again, I am sure people think the same thing here. However, that is a smaller, close knit forum.

On the Alderac Forums, well...honestly, I am confused on what can be posted where most of the time(they have a an archaic set up for what can be posted where,
that pretty much works out that either, anything can be posted anywhere, or nothing can be posted anywhere...gets frustrating to try and figure out where a thread goes...)
Their Mods are all over the place, and they do not erase posts that got a warning. Instead, they edit it with the mods name who warned them, stating why that post was
warned. It is scary to post a question, wake up, look up at the thread, and see it locked, with tons of red Mod Type on half the posts..It is a place that, while I like knowing
why a warning was delivered, the fact that posting in the wrong forum gets you a warning, thread drift gets you a warning, thread necromancy gets you a warning, double
posting gets you a warning...

On the White-Wolf Forums....I am not sure if they even HAD mods. Things there were viscious, and, honestly, I only ever saw ONE person get a ban in my time there,
and he was someone who took the worst of all the worst posters here, merged it all together, and then amplified it. The guy made Frank Trollman at his worst seem
as friendly as Ned Flanders. And it took them 3 or 4 years to decide to ban the guy. The White-Wolf Forums are just not a place I like to hang around.

What do I see here? 1) The mods contribute to the community like we see on the battletech forums. Here is not that small, though, so to some people, the Mods seem distant.
2) The rules are well defined like we see on the Alderac, but the Mods allow alot more lattitude then is seen over there. 3) The Mods are actually PRESENT and visible. We know
who they are.

Honestly, I think that one of the big issues with the seeming belief in lack of Mod Neutrality is, in fact, that we know who the Mods are. Would people think the mods were more
neutral if it was not, say, Grinder making a Mod Post, but "PurpleModerator" and you did not know that Grinder was a moderator? Would people think there was more Mod Neutrality if
the warnings were put up in the person's posts(in Mod Text) with a rule that editing out a Mod Edit was a warnable offense?

baaah, baaah! i say . . politics suck <.<

First, I have to object to the term "neutral"- that implies the absence of an opinion or vested interest. If thats the goal, nobody here would be qualified for a moderator position. Sure, we could all pretend not to have opinions on anything, but that would be a bunch of bullshit. We are SR fans first, and we have as much right as any other fan (for what thats worth) to be pissed off or concerned about these events. The fact that we aren't actively arguing along with everyone else should be evidence enough of our efforts to remain *objective* (which is a much more reasonable goal, IMHO). I would also note that numerous admin's with obvious conflicts of interest (Adam, John Dunn, Bull) have voluntarily stepped down from active moderation- not all recently, but if that doesn't speak to their integrity I don't know what would.

Second, I would point out that any moderator action is the result of an ongoing discussion open to all the moderators. While we don't always agree 100%, almost nothing is done unilaterally and true abuse of power is pretty much a non-option. And as has been mentioned, none of us are protected from warnings or bans if we are being asshats.

But the reality is that under the current circumstances we are in a no-win situation- if we say anything one side or the other cries foul and says we're biased. If we don't say anything we are still accused of "towing the CGL party line" because we let Jason post or continue the long LONG standing practice of sticking announcements about new SR releases (which we should all be excited about- remember most of what we are seeing is work that Adam, Synner, AH, DE and other did months ago). I made an attempt to defend a moderate position in one of the CGL speculation threads (contrary to my actual opinions on the matter), and I was essentially accused of being as morally corrupt as Loren L Colemann because I appeared to be defending CGL. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I just wish we could all get back to talking about the game we all love. Can't we all just get a long? (yeah I went there)

Ever since the co-mingling has come to light people have taken sides. Some may not have meant to, but many if not most knew what they were doing.

The difference between earlier disagremenets is that this time we're not arguing about game rules or game fluff, but morals, money and ethics and especially people. A number of posters are directly affected by whatever end this situation will have.

No, we all can't get along since "we all" includes people who hurt each other, and I do not mean by disagreeing on the forum. We're talking people (possibly) losing their job, their money, their reputation. You cannot expect we'd all get along when it's clear someone is acting in a completely abhorrent manner (even though it may not be clear to everyone who exactly is that someone).

As it is bridges have been burned and are still being burned, and most here learned far more about other posters than they would have liked to.

Really? And what would those "sides" be? Sounds awefully adversarial.

I would note that the people responsible for these things are not active members of this community (active accounts maybe, but not active posters), tho we certainly have people who have been harmed. So I fail to see the reason for this fundimental differing you are describing. Unless you implying something else?

And by the way, that was a joke.

One side is "I hope Catalyst retains its license" and the other side is "I hope Catalyst loses the license".



I count among active posters both former freelancers and employees of CGL as well as current employees of CGL and freelancers. Given what kind of accusations were and are levelled against each other, directly or indirectly, I don't understand how you fail to see the reason for the differing.

We're not talking about who was right or wrong about a rules call. We're talking about who was right about CGL's Books, mode of business, recordings, ethics, and finances.

How about the people who dont really care who gets the license but are still disgusted with how people are acting? Not just those that actually matter, but the nobodies in threads like this one who think they are lawyers and insiders who demand to know what is going on in business that is absolutely none of their concirns.

You're firmly in the CGL camp.

See. It's just that simple.

Right and none of them are responsible for the current situation so I'm not sure who your opposition is directed at. Presumably it is Loren Coleman +/- Randal Bills, neither of whom are active members of this community. Your moral crusading here seems to me to be misdirected.

But this is off topic...

Just wow

My point is that things were said and people hurt on a personal level, which makes this different from arguing over rules and playstyles.

Did you read the threads where Jennifer Harding had to clarify what she said? Where people accuse each other of being stooges or spies? Freelancers on both sides.

I am morally crusading in the speculation thread, here I am just trying to show why things are as the yare - both sides crossed lines, and the more statements and information we get, the less I can see a possible explanation that makes "all a big misunderstanding", or something similar.

Yeah. Sometimes it is that simple. The way he attacks AH and Frank Trollman, and blames them for revealing the dirty laundry of CGL, makes him a firm supporter of CGL. He clearly does not think one should blow the whistle on such practises as co-mingling money and not paying freelancers.

It is possible for all sides to have done something wrong. Doing a single wrong doesn't preclude someone else from doing something wrong as well. There's really no relation from one to the other. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs a right. They are both wrongs.

It's not wrong for me to point that out either.

And before you go off and stuff me in some camp, which you've already done anyway in your boolean world, you may want to consider that I am referring to a general principle when speaking of wrongs, and not necessarily the one you are obsessed with. Some people may also note it's possible for my reply to be on a multi contextual level as well.

Of couse two sides can be wrong - but if one side is the one co-mingling money to the tune of over 500K, and not paying freelancers for months to years... and that leaves the even more serious accusations out of it... and the other side is blowing the whistle... I think everyone can see that judging both to be equally wrong is kind of biased.

A thief, for example, has done something worse than someone parking in a no parking zone for 5 minutes. To treat both the same is favoring the thief - or treating the other far worse than he deserves.

And that is why a few here are picking sides despite claiming not to: By failing to consider the vast difference between the "whistleblowers'" possible wrong, and the kind of wrong CGL did over years.

Those weren't the wrongs I was referring to. But I already said that.

Being "less" wrong then some other wrong doesn't make what you do not a wrong.

Fuchs, it sound like this.

You post something, Admins don't agree with you and say so.

So they are out to get you.

Now...play it out like this.

You post something, Admins don't agree with you but don't say anything.

Does that mean that they are out to get you?


I started this thread because it vexed me that the Admins who voiced an opinion were being told to shut up because others didn't agree with their posts (and that is really how it came off). I didn't want to derail the other thread but wanted to say my piece.

As a current SR freelancer I know how I am viewed by some (hack, gaps in my knowledge...yawn). At the end of the day, I can look myself in the mirror and be satisfied that I am supporting Shadowrun, some very decent people, and acknowledge that mistakes have been made by some. Since I don't walk on water or part the seas on my days off I figure that is about par for the course.

The ironic thing about this, besides ignoring my post in response to your 'what if', is that the closest thing we have to politics among the mods is avoiding going off on someone when we get frustrated. Because we do. Mostly when we see the same arguement pressed again and again from the same angle, much like someone slamming their head into a wall (not directed at you Stahl, general statement). All of us on the mod side are just here to have a good time, and the thing that gets the most frustrating is logging in and seeing three different reports about the same people and the same threads. So we check it out and see waht the problem is rather than spending out time dorking around on the boards, and seeing what people have to say.

The new mods seriously considered the questino as to whether to 'sign up' for this job or not, and I hope that they're not regretting it yet, because they came in at a rough time, and now they have sentiments saying that they cannot expres their own opinion.

I get that Knasser is talking more about a divide between mod actions and personal, and that makes sense. What frustrates me is people pressing the point of their opinion on others.

There are people that simply don't care about the Catalyst situation. They think it sucks most likely, but they'd like to see the company keep going. Some people are just here to play a game, and don't care about where it all comes from and the drama behind it. A lot of people play this game to take a break from life's every day drama with something more amusing, and don't want to hear more of the same when they log in. You can say that they don't have to log into those particular discussino threads, but this thread in particular is a perfect example of the bleed over.

Fuchs opinion for example may be a just one, but the bottom line is that it is an opinon. There are other opinions, such as that the freelancers wo withheld copyright are hurting themselves and others. It's not my place to make such calls, nor do I intend to share my opinion. That's my choice. It's every other User and mods choice to share their opinion. Nothing gets to me quicker than someone with the 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude when it's a matter of opinion. That keeps people from wanting to post, because they don't want to set themselves up for a fight.

So drop the 'sides' and the 'battle lines'. It's a message board. People are going to post. If you're going to get advesarial about it, go yell somewhere else. And this 'if you're not for us you're against us' BS has got to stop.

The whole thing is limited to a few clearly named threads. Those who do not care about the situation one way or the other can simply avoid those threads. If there was a discussion about whether or not the Tir situation was handled well people who don't care either way would not post there, and avoid it too.

Whoops, i did not mean to ignore it, i simply overread that one . . sorry, my bad <.<;,

i envy you . . really, i do . . where i work, EVERYTHNG becomes politics rather soon as of late <.< . . and i know getting frustrated because of that and customers too, so i understand you
eh, i would not mind, even if it were aimed at me . .

nothing to say to this last batch, just did not want to quote something out of context.

I have to point out that while much is an opinion, there are things that are not mere opinions, and therefore statements about them are simply right or wrong. Like math and grammar.

I'm surprised to see topics discussing the mods and their actions so often on this board, tbh. Of course, I don't have much experience on this board yet, but so far the mods have appeared to be rather fair to me.

Somebody mentioned the Alderac boards, and thats a prime example of mods on a power trip and overmoderating to the degree of complete insanity. I never received a warning there, but I got really tired to see how much new posters were likely to start their membership there with a warning for their first post already.

Sorry about the bleed over.

I really didn't want this to be about CGL...rather the need to trust the fairness of the Admins here. My sense is that if you approach them fairly and don't pop off on them like an 'asshat' that they will hear you out.

It should go without saying that every time I post anything, it is just my opinion. My history is filled with mistakes, stupid things that I have said, etc....I don't hold any sort of moral high ground. Just a guy trying to do what I think is right.

I brought a possible explanation up in an earlier thread: Most moderator actions, warnings specifically, are not known by anyone but mods and the poster getting warned, and even posts that violate the ToS are left standing.
So if someone makes a personal attack against one, one won't know if the mods did anything about it.

Which means one has to trust the moderators that they are neutral and do take action. That's not always easy under those circumstances, since it would be really easy for the mods to favor certain posters, with no one the wiser.

The public warnings are something that have come up a number of times among the mod group, including recently, right after the newest of us joined up. Then there was a thread or two where we discussed some of the moderation issues we were working on/issuing on and they blew up. So it's a choice based off of what's proven to be practical.

It's pretty rare that we issue warnings to brand new postsers. You've got to really ask for it. Even then, a Warning isn't that big a deal. It's kind of like getting your name on the board in grade school. The process leads to forced breaks, which is where the real enforcement comes in. As to why we see our actions discussed so much, a lot of that (I think) is because all of our mods are pulled from our pool of users, so we try to be a little more open about what we've got going on. There are times when we'd love to say "because I said so" and simply leave it as that. But we tend to see the boards as more of a shared community then just "ours". That, and I hate hearing "because I said so", but that's a personal thing.



This isn't either. Although there are definitely some straight forward issues (I'd say a negative account balance would be math )the situation isn't that straight forward. And I've seen too many people using the moral high ground as an excuse to be pushy and belligerent.

That's as impossible as two yes meaning no . . YEAH SURE!
And that's for Grammar ^^

I've always proffered "Because my personal power and ability to enforce my will on this matter exceeds yours." It has more cachet to it and confuses young children or helps introduce them to the wonders of the dictionary.

Honestly I'll say that despite some issues I've found the moderators to be pretty even handed especially considering the gravity of the debates in question, I see no reason for them to recuse themselves.

All I can say is that I do not know what the moderators did. If anyone finds their actions to be even handed then they either have information not available to the rest of the posters, or simply trust the mods.

You could try something like looking at our results. Considering the situation going on, for the most part, things are running rather smoothly. We do have the occassional nasty jab being thrown, but it's no where near the mess that it has been in the past around here. I believe I get what you're saying, that it's hard to say you see even handed play when you don't see each individual warning given our. Fair enough. But you also don't see us persecuting anyone, or targeting people. You can say that's because you don't see the warnings we've issued, but we have had threads that other posters have started discussing the Warns they've received. There were a few contentions points, and those were mostly years old.

Bottom line though is that you don't have to know. It's not some Super Secret Police Conspiracy, it's just not your business. That's why we don't post other people's warns. You can probably infer who we issue Warns to. When they get out of hand, take a look at who isn't posting, and that'll probably tell you all you need to know. Basic etiquette ; praise in public, reprimand in private. I personally am not asking you to trust me. I'm asking you to police yourself so that we don't have to.

Get four math or language majors together, you'll soon find out that they can't even agree on what's correct at times.

I would like to echo something that Fisty said: if people want to share their personal history of warnings there is nothing stopping them.

If they did, you would find that almost everyone who gets a warning:
-- already knows he crossed the line (most are expecting our PM before it is sent)
-- appreciates the need for moderator intervention to maintain a civil tone on the boards
-- takes it in stride and goes on about his business

However, a very tiny minority apparently lack the insight required to acknowledge that they were out of line and modify their behavior. Instead they feel the need to question our motives, argue our methods or accuse us of bias, censorship, persecution, personal vendettas or all manner of other conspiratorial silliness.

I think most reasonable members can plainly see the difference.

It is a recent phenomenon related to the CGL situation. Heated debates --> more moderator intervention --> more complaints about moderation. This isn't the norm by any means.

Intransparency will always be a cause for concern, and that could be avoided easily. As was pointed out people can already complain about moderation, so there's no compelling argument to keep the proceedings hidden.

One thing that's not clear is whether a report is needed for mods to take action, or if they will take action anytime they happen upon a ToS violation.

I'd GUESS both . .
But then, if there's nobody complaining about it, the need to step in might not be too big . .

All in all it looks like it's just a bit too easy to secretly bend the rules. And I do not think that every mod, all the time, is above letting personal opinions and prejudices influence a decision. There's a bit too much patting on one's own back in this thread.

Of course they are not. They are only human after all . . i guess . .

I've been on that end once in my life time.
Administrator and later super user of a bigger chat-system.
Real-time-chat-system. Not Messaging Board like this.
And there were no constant logs either, they got deleted after some minutes.
When i was logged in and i saw people doing stupid shit, i waited to see of anybody complained.
If nobody did, i usually did not take action, because they all know they can complain about it.
So if they don't, is's probably not important enough for them and thus me to take action.
Only if i, myself, was bothered by the crap happening, did i ask for it to stop without other people complaining.
And then i only asked, nicely, at first. Which is basically like the colourfull postings by the mods in here.
If people did not stop, i could do stuff to them. Kick them, ban them, change their name, change their password, e-mail-adress . . everything . .
Including promoting them to temporary admins or taking admin status away. Even making a registered user into a guest account.

I'm relatively sure I'm going to end up with a warning myself for this, and probably the first one, but we'll see if I can't stay polite.

First: Yeah, I'm relatively new here, and no, I haven't seen the bazillion years of posting modding that Bull and Fist and the rest have done, but ya know? I haven't seen nor heard of them flying off the handle. Nor, honestly, does it really matter.

If they decide to ban *EVERYONE* they'd simply be chalked up as assholes and we'd move on. Guess what, people who have admitted to regularly getting warnings ADMIT they earned 'em! They were neither surprised nor shocked that being flammatory, as you usually are Fuchs (possibly due to the very upfront second language barrier) and just don't seem to get it, gets 'em a message saying 'simmer down, Simba'.

I don't know if you've gotten them, or not. I personally don't give a crap either and really don't WANT the transparency, because it never fails that those threads about them end up as a place for flame fodder. 'eh, it might be helpful for me to know where the line is, but ya know, I can be annoying, questioning, and derailing, and I've yet to hear from 'em. I'll go with that's probably a good sign the line at is at a reasonable level.

Now, to the specific point in question, to hell with the concept of some mod who DOESN'T have a stake in a thread being the only ones to mod it. That's got to be the stupidest recommendation I've ever frickin' heard. It can take a few HOURS to get through the CGL Spec thread if you dare to be offline a day or three. And that's skimming. The only people who are going to bother with that ARE mods who care about what's going on. Otherwise you've just asked someone who's working for free to help make the place better to go sit in speculation hell to keep someone from crossing the razor's edge (or more) when the tone of the place is incindiary enough occassionally that noone bothers to report the lowball strokes.

Yes, there's a button for reporting posts. Reported posts out of context being modded are just as bad as blind justice. You end up with poor judgements.

As long as the mod in question can *objectively* mod, while *passionately* contribute, I see no issue. Have you seen or heard of warnings being given out to 'opposition' in an argument by a mod, other then when it was plainly deserved? They already expose that there is a moderator forum and discussion for any warning, which means even if they wanted to, they wouldn't do it in a vacuum.

The idea of only disinterested moderation is, at best, counterproductive. Sheesh. [EDIT]Removed personal, hypocritical, poorly phrased, and inflammatory attack on Fuchs.[/EDIT]

It would be easy to bend the rules, sure, if there weren't a lot of us. Or hell, more than two. The mods do not always agree and we have our own share of arguements. Believe me. And of course we have personal opinions and points of view/prejudice. That's why we put everything to a vote.

For example, I know that I personally have a few friends on here that act up, and shouldn't. I such a case, if I see the violation, I put it up on the board for other mods to review, and let them make the decision. Just like Bull stepped out of the issues with CGL, and Redjack has as well with a few people he's felt more heated about than he thought reasonable, I acknowledge my bias. We're adults, we know when our judgement isn't going to be unbiased, and we acknowledge it.

I'm fine with questioning authority. Keeps one honest. But at this point all you're saying is "I don't trust you because I can't see what you're doing." If that isn't your intention, that is how you're coming across. Statements like "too much patting on one's own back" aren't really very endearing either.

The current crop of moderators are largely a different group than the ones who almost banned me a while back.

I got into it with mods over the SR3/SR4 edition wars. And while I agree that I crossed the line on some occasions, I really think some of them were headhunting me on others. I'll forward the PM to anyone who asks where I took a suspension over calling Synner "implacable", while he was line developer. The new crowd agreed that I've been playing by the rules for long enough to lower my warning level, which is why I feel safe in posting this.

I think the mods have the same right to express their opinions as any other poster. However, I do think that if a mod has been involved, in any way, with the poster to be warned/suspended, they shoudl recuse themselves from the discussion. That seems only fair to me.

That is exactly what I am saying. Transparency is a good thing when it comes to authority, as the real world proves. And having had to deal on another forum with a mod who stealth-changed posts, coupled with the fact that edits are not visibly time-stamped on DS, really doesn't make me feel more trusting either.

Then shouldn't you feel better that we're so against editing, to the point that we don't ask for edits on posts that we issue Warns for?
There is a time stamp option of course. On the rare times when we do an edit, such as correcting a typo in a title, or removing a link (which is the only time we go in and modify a post, and only if the link is particularly bad, and the poster isn't present to do it themselves(, we do use it.

As for your trust issues, frankly, that's something you're going to have to learn to deal with.

If Cain, as an example, since he brought himself in, has even some nice things to say, then I'd count us as doing a good job. He's been one of the most vocal with issues that he has had, and we have agreed that there were issues there.

If you see something that you have an issue with, where you feel that we've dealt unfairly, then say something. Obviously you don't have a problem with speaking up, and we've been pretty open to discussions with you. However we've stated our position on public warns and the like. That isn't going to be changing. That's based off of the experience we have had here. It sounds corny but, don't come down on us because you have issues with previous relationships elsewhere.

I'm not neutral. I'm a mod.

You better hope I care otherwise no moderation at all will happen, and the results would be ugly.

I won't speak for other mods, but I'm a lazy sod who wants to do as little work as possible. Moderation takes work. It takes my time. I want to be as efficient and effective as possible with my time moderating. That means I prioritize my effort. It means I introduce bias and opinion.

That deals with my opinion part.

Transparency. Personally I'm all for it. It turns out in practice that some of what is asked for on these forums actually creates more moderation work for less results. It's not so much what the mods do, but the member responses. It's not even anything special to deal with, just the sheer quantity of time spent responding to each member if some things are open to too much discussion. No better results, and way more of my time. So as far as public discussion and review on everything, it just doesn't work out. Limited resources.

Does this mean everything happens in secret? Absolutely not. Everything is transparent to all the mods. Occasionally something happens where the team isn't all notified, but it's usually noticed by someone who brings attention to it, and then we all hear about it. There's a trail, it's all recorded. I can find out who did what and when and how whenever I need to. Most of the time I don't. But I'm totally confident I can find the trail of anything that happens in the forums if I need to.

Warnings and Transparency. Warnings are not secret. The person warned, and the mods can all see the Warning. It's usually discussed and reviewed by at least half the mods before anything is done. The person warned always has a chance to respond. We always give an explanation, the warning system requires one. We handle it all privately with the person being warned. It's not required to be private. Let's say someone wanted to publiclly discuss their warning and have a public thread on it, they are perfectly welcome to do so. I'm personally never going to start discussing a Warning as a Mod in public unless explicitly invited to do so. It's rude and unneccassary to do otherwise, and most likely just going to lead to more moderation work. Remember I'm lazy.

I'm lazy, remember? What does that mean? It means that quite frankly that there are billions of posts that probably merit some warning or questions from the mods that I either don't get around to reading, or don't bother doing anything about as the situation has passed and is no longer an issue. It means that someone might get one or two Warnings in the system, when really, if we applied our normal standards, they should have about 20. And the system only goes up to 10.

Secretly editing posts... did I mention I'm lazy? Wouldn't that take work? Regardless of any safeguards we may put in place, ultimately, if we chose to edit a post secretly there's not much you can do about it. Because despite any mechanical procedures in place, there are just some ways edits could be done that would be very hard to detect. You are just going to have to trust that those of us with the capability and access to the system don't do anything like that. On the other hand, I think you can tell historically the mods, and myself are very much against edits in principle for our own reasons, which is why we strive to do all we can to be visible about anything we may do in the way of moving or managing any posts. In the end, I'm lazy, so I trust in that enough for me not to do the work it would take to be super secret ninja post editor.

Yeah! What he said!

How about when a moderator who is an active participant in the discussion locks down the entire thread three times in a row? Sure, it's not a targeted action against a specific user but it could be viewed by some as a conflict of interest all the same.

Thread #7 -- Locked with the strong suggestion that it should stay closed for a few days until there was Real news. (Justification given: multiple pages of a handful of posters arguing back and forth over legal interpretations of a single line of a court report instead of "real information.")
Expression of exasperation with how the thread is proceeding (Made in regular posting colors, not Mod colors).
"Last warning" to not "post the same shit over and over again." (Previous warnings may have been via PM, because there certainly weren't any mod-colored warnings in the thread itself.)
Thread #8 -- Locked for 24 hours, to let people cool down and consider what they want to post. (This, after the previous day's worth of posts in the thread in which the following new information was posted: Jen Harding asserted her view that David Stansel did not have access to the financial records in the period between her parting ways with the company and his departure, and stated that she did not even know of her current employer Sandstorm until after she left IMR; and Robert Derrie expounding on just how much money he lost out on by his actions, and pointing out that he was in a position to withhold copyright on his material from Vice, but didn't. So not only can a lack of "real information" trigger a global thread lock, when new information comes to light, it can trigger a lock as well, unless everyone remains stoic about it.)
Expression of annoyance at Derrie's bitterness to Hardy. (Regular posting colors)
Statement of dislike of one of Derrie's chapter intro fictions. (Regular posting colors)
ROFL-smiley in response to one of Hardy's jokes.
Thread #8 -- Locked for 12 hours (Justification given: debate verging onto flamewar, after a day in which a PDF had to be pulled and re-released due to containing Derrie material that CGL had promised not to use.)

Grinder seems to like Hardy and seems not too fond of Derrie. Yet, the last two thread-wide enforced time outs have come when Derrie and other ex-CGL personnel are bringing to light information that is unflattering to CGL. And what got the speculation thread locked before that was a lack of "real information", which seems rather silly until you realize that the moderator who locked it appears tired of the whole discussion, and wants it to just stop until the next press release comes out.