Actually, the
full quote for Rule #3 is as follows:
3. Members are asked to not act as back seat moderators. If you notice a member is causing problems or doing something inappropriate on a thread, you are welcome to bring it to the attention a moderator.
Two things here: first, this rule doesn't specifically address the chat room. While it probably does apply to chat, it's specifically referencing forum threads. Using it as a guide to justify how you moderate the chat section seems sketchy to me. Secondly, was Schfifty bothering anyone else, or were you just personally annoyed? Was he given any warnings, not just from you, but from others, as well, or did you just get fed up and hit the ban button? You said this was a recurring problem, but I know I'm not alone in my high regard for Schfifty as a member, and I'm positive he would have stopped
if it really was a problem. And quite frankly, I don't see this as enough of a problem to ban someone over unless it was as extreme as some of the cases we've seen here on the boards, and again, I've never observed such behavior from him. What goes on in chat is different, and I rarely participate there, but I still think you overreacted, and until someone else says differently, I will continue to hold that position.
19. Members who select to violate any of these regulations will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. The moderators of these forums reserve the right to define “appropriate”.
Again, this is referencing the boards, but I assume it extends to chat, too. However, your mod powers only exist because you agreed to take over as recap guide. You have the power to regulate traffic in chat, and that's fine, but I don't consider what you deem as "appropriate" to be held in the same regard as that of a mod who was put in place because of their standing with the site and their trustworthiness to keep things around the site under control. If those mods (Steve Gavazzi, Prizes, CU, etc) find your reasoning for banning Schfifty or anyone else appropriate, then fair enough, but until then, I still see no clear basis for it.
