I'm beginning a fresh thread for this, because I think it deserves a separate topic. My comments here are my own; I'm not speaking in an official capacity (In fact, I will always indicate when I am speaking in an official capacity.) A member offered this criticism of the board leadership, which I've excerpted for brevity: Rob took over LPSG in December 2005, and appointed his first set of moderators on February 25, 2006. The faked death of DoubleMeatWhopper took place just two weeks earlier, and that story had been unravelling in the meantime. As moderators, we had access to information, such as IP logs, that made the 'unravelling' process much easier. Within a few days, we knew what was going on, down to DMW's real-life name, address, and phone number. We even had a recent photograph of him that we found on an unrelated website. One of the first tasks we had as a moderating team was to decide how much, if any, of this information to share. The decision we made was this: we will not share behind-the-scenes information. This is a promise that we make that your online privacy, your identity, your private messages* will not be violated by us. Consider it our 'prime directive', if you're a Star Trek fan. What this means, is that we're willing to discuss issues like, "Why does the TOS allow X but not Y?" and "Should a decision to do X require a simple majority vote, or something stronger like 2/3 or a unanimous consent?" What we're not willing to discuss are questions about specific cases like "Why did you ban X?" Feel free to use this thread to discuss ways to improve the TOS (which is a work in progress that needs improvement), or to criticize our prime directive if you'd rather. _____________________________________ *But we don't restrict moderators from disclosing their own private conversations.