Thank you for clarifying. If a Forum Ambassador is on ignore, then it follows that any warning or input that Forum Ambassador gives will be ignored (albeit unintentionally).
Moderators are the like the sheriffs, and the Forum Ambassadors are like deputies. This is why they are here. Just as the sheriffs should be listened to, deputies are as well.
We would not have people in these positions if we were concerned about them going on a power trip and causing problems for people. As SC grows, there will be more and more people here, so keeping up with the forum, we need more attention to the forum from others who are willing to help.
These concerns about this forum becoming some sort of malevolent dictatorship because of enforcing certain rules has already been addressed. Itâs not dichotomous: either a malevolent dictatorship where at any given moment people are banned on a whim (bad), or a forum that is totally free without any monitoring (good).
What about the times when we were lenient to others? How many times have we given people second, third, and fourth chances? How many times have we tolerated certain things because we kept hoping a certain person would âcome aroundâ or âturn over a new leafâ? How many times have people more or less been wanting us to ban certain people, or been relieved when we finally did ban someone? I donât think anyone was worried about us acting in an authoritarian manner of running the forum when some people were continually acting disrespectfully and disruptively. In fact, there were members who felt relieved when we finally did take decisive action such as banning someone.
We are here to ensure respect and thriving. We monitor ourselves. We also monitor each other. None of us are power hungry.