If synergy is described as that state where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, I have always seen this place as the opposite.
The whole, here, is much less than the sum of its parts.
Individually, most mods are good people, here.
Individually, most mods (maybe all) are good people.
This isn’t a value judgment on all mods nor is it a value judgment of any individual mods as people.
The OP complaint is that some members are “misusing” this feedback forum. But if a mod is making such a complaint about the members and suggesting that this forum is being used only to “whine” about certain mod actions, then t seems fair to ask some pointed questions.
It’s not “whining” to note that if I get moderated (for example, if I am given a 1 week ban), I can’t take up that sanction with anyone BECAUSE I can’t even send a PM to any mod during a ban.
It wasn’t “whining” when I recently expressed my problem with unsigned Mod PM’s. Those come when a thread gets moved. The mod didn’t take credit when it is “signed” as coming from “?” Also, I have been told that a thread had been moved. It wasn’t. It was simply deleted. So, is it whining to ask where it was supposedly “moved?”
Also, let’s say there is no ban. So, I can still post. I receive some mod action like a “warning.” Ok. The rules say I should take that up with the mod. It’s like arguing with the umpire. The call is going to stand. So, instead, we can send a pm to all the mods.
I am curious if that has ever led to a reversal? But the bigger question is “why?” Why should a mod action be immunized from fuller public scrutiny? Why is it “whining” to make it a “feedback” comment for the mod, all mods and all interested members to ponder? Why
shouldn’t it be a public challenge to a ruling?
I ask all of these as examples only. I generally like the Board. I am ok with some moderation (even if I’m the one on the receiving end). One of my complaints has been about immoderate moderation. Why shouldn’t that kind of complaint be allowed to be made in public?