As a relative noob, I've seen—on numerous occasions across numerous
threads—an almost complete lack of moderator and/or administrator input,
censuring, warning, editing or bannings. This despite clear and repeated
breaches of the site's rules, and often by the same perpetrators, who seem
to belong to some clique that avoids any suppression and/or penalty.
Is this opinion correct?
And secondly, how were/are moderators chosen? Does the membership get
some sort of say in it? Are there periodic nominations and seconding, followed
by a vote? Are moderators themselves ever relieved of their position for
their own infractions of the site's rules?
I reckon a stronger, more involved moderating team with better oversight
would see a notable improvement of the forum's value and public face.
—Or am I just a dreamer?