kendall
a nonsensical and fundamentally flawed response. the most primitive to the most sophisticated group operates a code of conduct that is generally understood by those it affects. a template to frame judgements, a necessary accompaniment to judgement, a yardstick by which punishment is served-up. there is nothing demanding, exceptional or unreasonable about that. no-one doubts that judgements need to be made. you belligerently continue to underestimate the membership when you resort to dismissive, glib, cardboard dimensional statements like the one presented above. your failing is not merely your moderation, but your communication in general. your approach is not one of a skilled moderator with the maturity to carry out the job properly. effective moderation relies on the input from its membership. that includes acknowledging the right of that membership to express their concerns and for consensual views to be brought to bear on any major decisions you make.
a significant number of members have registered their dissatisfaction with your decision to ban certain members while granting others an amnesty. to ignore this is to further demonstrate your impaired judgement. it demands a more rigorous explanation than simply chalking it up to a 'difficult decision'. how precisely was it a difficult decision to allow noel campbell to remain in the face of mass objections and no shortage of evidence pointing to his destructive intent? the question of impaired judgement aside, you have a responsibility to set out the following as a minimum: nature of incidents were bans apply, durations of bans, and the options for appeal/resolution. it is a necessary mechanism by which all your judgements should be executed otherwise those judgements don't stand up.
your reference to 'we' presumably relates to you and rena. together you're a much maligned force. a nonsense. i already made my views known about the lack of transparency when you chose to recruit her. since you knew each other, and both interact on the board, your ability to make unbiased decisions and apply some semblance of objectivity when conflict arises is compromised beyond repair.
finally, despite you taking cover under a cloud of inappropriate self-pity and emotional distress during the last moderation crisis to hit this place, the majority of the membership, including those you have chosen to ban, were more than forgiving and conciliatory in their communication with you. the membership was instrumental in putting this place back on a reasonable footing. that's the difference between shrewd maturity and the shallow, callous abuse of power. continue to píss all over that at the board's peril.