Sorry to bring up a subject that was a few days ago, as I was not here I will put some input. Having not been a mod myself I cannot say for sure, but haven't seen from other mods and the work they do, I imagine that there is a LOT more to moderating than just "keeping the rules," there's talking to people in PM; trying to solve disputes, talk to people who do not truly understand a situation; issue infractions or warnings and I'm sure that, that isn't always as things are not always as straight forward as they may seem. Example, the one that raas gave above with the sites. They're also not allowed to give out information, keep the line between friendship and disciplinary. For instance, if they have to infract someone who is a "friend," then they have the issue of it coming between their friendship etc.
So I wouldn't image it is as "easy" as it seems. I think saying that is an insult to the moderators here - and all the work that they do in order to keep the site running, keep members satisfied, keep out trolls, drug dealers, keep members safe from harassment and / stalkish behaviour. Also they have to put up with abuse from members, which isn't fair when at the end of the day they're volunteers, they're not being paid for the job that they do here. And last but not least, give quite a bit of commitment towards Bluelight, read through the reads even the boring ones, read reports; decide on the appropriate actions, discuss us troublesome members (hehe had to get a joke in there)
I think all of the staff here; moderators, senior moderators and administrators, do an ACE job and that we should be thanking them and showing them our appreciation not insulting them. Constructive criticism is good but really we can't say their job is easy, can we. Anyone that implies that I suggest you apply to be a moderator and see if you can do a better job
that's one opinion and it's a perfectly valid one when you take a very narrow view.
simply put, being considered a market for drugs or enabling sourcing and supply is a danger to bluelight's existence. and we likely wouldn't have to lose a legal case to go under - just being involved in one would probably be enough. so we have a very low, if not zero-tolerance, for discussion of sources. and, in enforcing sourcing rules, we tend to err very heavily on the side of caution.
does that mean that some cases, discussed in isolation, seem kind of silly? sure it does. but it's the price we pay for trying to ensure bluelight is here tomorrow.
you might think it's daft and that we're stupid for drawing the line where we've chosen to draw it. again, that's an opinion and certainly one to which you are entitled.
alasdair
That makes perfect sense, Alasdair.
I think mentioning sites is very silly because it could give someone access to a site that they would not have before thus causing more harm than good.
Oh, it's ace to be back at Bluelight

Missed you all so damn much,
Evey xxxx