Of course your opinion is important unless you also avoid any participation in staff discussions. then you have just siloed yourself. I think that moderators are capable of expressing their own opinions about things in public even if they are not the same as official statements from Admins or Supermods. Such statement have certainly been made in the past.
Presenting a fully unified front from the staff that pretends unanimity of opinions is silly. It is much better to recognize that the staff has a diverse set of opinions and that they have reached an agreement on how how an issue is to be codified into the guidelines. if there are discussions going on over time, it is likely that differing views are being expressed. why not acknowledge that, mention some of the discussion points and then pronounce an agreement.
"Hey guys, we're talking about this and and trying to balance what we think are the key issues; A, B, and C. we'll keep you updated as we make progress. blah blah blah..."
ho, don't worry for me, I participate when we're discussing about the organization of the forum in relation to the latest Civilization iteration or about modding.
I could give my opinion as anyone using internet since some time and dealing with trolls in general discussions on other sites, it's just that I don't think it's the one the participants in the topic want to hear, because it's just another member opinion, me being a mod don't give it more weight in this specific case, as I don't moderate in OT. What you really want is a spokesperson from the staff.
But before, for me there is a difference between presenting a collective answer and presenting an unified front. First case means we're discussing the subject (which in itself acknowledge different opinions), the second case would mean we're facing an enemy. I know some people can't prevent themselves to see any representation of authority (even a small one) as their sworn enemy, even when they were (and still are) members of the same community (that have accepted a post as a moderator in the community without reading the fine prints first, note that I've never opened a PM after too many drinks again...), but I assure you (well, not you in particular, you already know that) that staff discussions are not about war plans. No, really, they're not ! (*remove troops from OT borders*)
Now, if you allow me to continue to role play your average (but unofficial) spokesperson, this kind of internal discussions (in the staff break room, at the table near the water cooler, because the Star Chamber is currently under repair) usually goes in three steps:
- The surviving OT moderators convince the rest of the staff that no, perma-banning every member that has posted more than five messages in OT is not a good idea.
- The staff reject some proposals, in the current discussion we've realized that naming Tim a moderator was a fitting punishment but we were reminded of the Geneva Conventions that forbid such barbaric treatment of an unwilling individual (I've discretely send a letter in Switzerland to ask if there was something in the texts about a willing but drunk individual)
- Finally deciding what to do, if needed
It seems we're at step 3/ now, trying to see if/when/where some tolerance/limits of the current rules should be changed. Or not.
In short no decisions has been made, we'll keep you updated as we make progress.
