DISCLAIMER: This may be treated as a hypothetical scenario applying across the internet forums 'landscape'. Not intended to be specific to any one particular site/moderator etc. Thankyou. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have often noted in internet forums generally where certain people profess to take the supposed 'high ground' by making much of the rules when wishing to put an ordinary member 'in their place'. Some hypothetical questions to anyone interested in replying.... What are your hypothetical views regarding hypothetical lies and libels by moderators against ordinary members? The usual hypothetical forum procedures make much of what ordinary members cannot do, but where are the explicit hypothetical rules for what moderators themselves cannot do? If hypothetically moderators have the power to threaten throwing the book at members, who hypothetically has the power to threaten throwing the book at moderators? If complaints in the 'approved process' manner do not work hypothetically, how credible/genuine are the usual exhortations by certain people to ordinary members to 'follow approved procedure' by the rules etc etc, especially if the one making the exhortations might be hypothetically himself a moderator who has lied and libeled and the system gives no fair recourse for the affected member to get remedy, simply because the hypothetical forum 'system' may be effectively 'stacked against' the ordinary member irrespective of 'the rules' lofty original intentions? No claims made. Just canvassing views on hypothetical scenarios which may or may not exist in reality across the internet forum 'landscape'. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! All genuine and constructive 'hypothetical views' on this will be welcome! Cheers!