Sticky threads, extensive rules, arbitrary bans, we've all heard it before. What I want to examine today is the effect of "awareness" of moderation in a net community like 4chan.

It normal for a group of users on a site to want to get together in person, take the SA goonmeets, or the Futaba and Nijiura mini events. These however tend to be organized by the users if they're even anything more than a casual gathering. For the admins to organize an "event" at a convention with themselves in starring roles seems a bit much.

The 4chan mods are so prominent that they've become part of the culture, generating in-jokes like moot and mexico or turning them into characters like WTSnacks.

Does this promote a lot of pandering to the mods' whims?

Why analyze it?

It works for some sites some times and not for other sites other times.

Depends on how the site was made, when, who, the userbase, etc.

If Anonymous wants to espouse mediocrity, that's entirely his option, but mediocrity is a crappy lay. She just lays there doing nothing.

Moderating is a necessary evil, and one that should be minimized as much as possible.

[Community] in every [board] is a blessing, but [moderation] even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one...

	-- Thomas Paine, adapted