[quote=@Mao Mao]
Then, shouldn't Stark's position be changed to something like Facebook Group Moderator so there could be another mod position fulfilled?[/quote]

That position doesn't exist. Whenever Mahz is on an extended leave of absence, we cannot change anything structurally about the site -- moderator roles, forums and subforums, systems and features, etc. That's exclusively his domain. Ruby and I have the power to appoint and demote moderators and we exist to have the final say over escalated issues. That's about it. Consider us a maintenance crew. A few people compared us to janitors and that isn't entirely incorrect. 

If Mahz had his way, the site would have no rules and the moderators wouldn't have to exist. He prefers for the community to moderate itself. Some people make that impossible, so here we are, out of necessity. But because of that vision, we have no interest in rewriting the rules to be even more specific so that they can be lawyered endlessly. And even if we did, our repeat offenders would still get in trouble just as much as before. They break the rules constantly, no matter how you rewrite them.

I was like that once. Before the Guild was wiped, I was the most infracted person in the Guild's history and the biggest pain in the collective staff's ass for [i]years[/i]. But I grew up, realized that I cared more about the site than I cared about being a rebel, and turned my style around. I recognize a lot of my past self in our most persistent troublemakers. Their complaints are worded nicely sometimes and it's dressed up under the guise of 'inconsistent moderation' or 'unclear rules', but it really comes from a place of just wanting to be free to do whatever the hell they want and not liking it when they get banned over it -- and, after years of being a frequently problematic presence, they still expect to be treated like a first-time offender. It's disingeneous and immature and at this point, frankly, tiresome. 

That's not to say that there are zero valid points in this thread, or zero honest and sincere people. I understand the request for transparency from some, because our persistent troublemakers make it seem like the issues with moderation are much greater than they are. 

But I assure you, the [i]vast[/i] majority of the people on this site have no idea about any of it. It (and by this I mean moderation in general) truly, seriously, [i]doesn't affect a lot of people[/i]. Most of our users don't need us at all. I've seen people here write that Ruby was unfair to a majority of users, which is a gross exaggeration -- if she's even been unfair to anyone in the first place. Most users are just here to write and chat and have a good time, and they do, and we don't get in the way of that at all. Sometimes people get caught in the crossfire whenever some Guild drama flares up (always owing to the same group of people, mind you) and they try to involve themselves, but that is statistically negligible. If that's happened to you, feel free to talk to me about it.

Whenever our group of troublemakers keeps their noses clean for a while, we can go days or weeks without having to take any staff action. Whenever one of them is banned, they cause an uproar and resort to public outrage. Then things quiet down for a while and rinse and repeat. 

[i]"If it smells like shit wherever you go, check under your own shoes."[/i]