Thank you for acknowledging the troubles of Pixelation Diced.
Helm is correct. We literally could not modify the FAQ/Rules to reflect with the times, which was a disadvantage in keeping the forum on a productive path. Tsugumo and Frozen were fading out of the picture, so without the presense of our head admins, or an official relationship with our hosting, we began to question our own authority as the organization evolved. We had to think on our feet more often than we wanted to.
Darksword: let's not get too much into eulogizing. Pixelation DID suffer from too-harsh-too-swift moderation at times, and I can tell you because I was also partly responsible.
I'll second that. The incidents where people posted fake jobs brought about heightened scrutiny towards even legitimate job posters, which likely appeared harsh and unreasonable to them, making me and the others look bad. While swiftness can be bad, not every account can be dismissed as such: The staff had spent many hours deliberating on the various issues of the forum, and swiftness became an interest of productivity in order to return the forum to its focus.
Still, Diced and DarkSword bring up a good point: Pixelation moderators must be patient, able to commit, reason, and re-evaluate every step of the way, and it can be very stressful. The patience it demands also requires a great deal of time in service. There's often little reward. Unfortunately, too few people are able to deal with it. We really could use more good mods. And because Pixelation was a critique based forum, critique of the moderators performance was also embraced. Accountability was expected.
Personally, I can safely say that I am biased by my experiences and position. Even so, I've always tried to be objective as a moderator, even when it meant ruling against friends. The coldness of objectivity has often been misinterpreted as hatred, and an unwarranted prejudice looms still.
If I may parley back to Diced's observations, I'd bring up the issue of perspective over a period of time. It appeared that some people held the belief that the moderators at Pixelation were, to bluntly generalize, corrupt thugs. In the course of over a year, forums have risen and fallen, partly based on these beliefs. Some people who objected to the principles of moderatorship, or the individuals who represented the authority, became moderators themselves in other venues and have possibly obtained a certain amount of perspective on the matters of community and fairness. This is an excellent opportunity for those people to share their experiences. Even the common members of forums must have some opinions on the policies and methods by which a site chooses to operate.
For some people, it's difficult to relate to the perspective of someone of 'authority'. Even the suggestion brings perceptions of disparity. And to the regular member, the perspective tends to be that a moderator is popular until the rules fall out of your favor and they bring down their authority on you. Some people race to the conclusion that the rules are explicitly slanted against them, let alone any possibility that someone of authority can act fairly and objectively in the first place.
Moderators are not immune to error. They are human. Sure they have 'powers', but the only thing they are guaranteed by taking up the position is responsibility. Some people will avoid responsibility when it is convenient, but If moderators were the absolute law, then people would see no reason to be responsible in any way for themselves or to the community for which the governing body caters, because their freedoms would be so heavily restricted by the whimsy of the few. While rules help keep the system focused, freedom cannot be legislated, and responsibility cannot be given. If you can see the common values of the community, you're compassed to understand the good and bad elements that it is composed of.