Originally Posted by James81
But I WOULD say that Steve doesn't keep moderators that have any tendency to disagree with him or would put up TOO much of a disagreement with him. I do get the sense that Steve is more interested in "lackey" type of moderators (i.e. those who will simply enforce the rules) than he is in the type of moderator that would be apt to question some of the policies that are already in place and move for adapting/changing the forums based on the feedback from its members.
Well, we're obviously putting up a very cohesive front.
A lot of things happen that the rules don't specifically address. There's no way to have a solid rule structure that applies to every possible issue that could come up, and there's no way for Steve to be the final arbiter of every moderation call. So "simply [enforcing] the rules" is a moot issue. You have to possess and use your own judgment.