Friends,
As you know, one of the primary reasons for having multiple moderators is to prevent the possibility of the abuse of power. We are concerned with having a fair system that causes no one grief (unfortunately, due to our quality control rules, this is not always possible). For this cause, we have initiated a new policy that will for now be known as the Triumvirate Act. There are two main parts to this act:
1. Any moderator decisions must be deliberated upon before going through. Any moderator decisions must be made unanimously.
2. While the founder can pass any suggestions regardless, a unanimous agreement by the moderators can veto any legislation put into effect by the founder.

This act has several benefits. First, it prevents personal abuses of power. Any abuses of power can be immediately repealed and fixed. Second, it prevents the possibility of civil war. Under this act, no individual can perform anything on his own, and it is our hope that this act will prevent the possibility of fragmentation if this group grows larger. This, hopefully, will give our group a sense of unity and fairness that many others lack.

As always, the posting of concerns are not only welcome, but encouraged.

4075370 I personally don't think that this is the best decision. Sure, it might work fine for a small group, but in a larger group this could potentially paralyse the group's mods and admins, thus creating a grid-lock, causing whatever supposed problem the moderator tried to handle to stay unfixed. I think that group moderators should have the power to enact decisions (delete posts, ban users, things of that nature) and if an objection is raised about their use of power then have the case looked over. In the case that the founder of the group going full Emperor Nero power mad, then that is when a site moderator or admin is contacted. That is merely my opinion though.

4076154 You have made an extremely valid point. I'll see what the mods think.