• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Should Moderators/Admis be removed for participating on "rival" sites?

Should they be removed?

  • Total voters


Rattlesnake Flavored
A simple question. Should moderators or admins be removed from their positions for participating on another "rival" site (forum or otherwise)?

I suppose the deeper part of this question is what qualifies as a "rival" site. Obviously, this would be one that serves an identical or near similar service, and could be chosen over one of the other. As far as the level of participation, for the sake of example, let's say said Mod is a casual uploaded and occasional forum poster.

That's the somewhat simple question. Here's several extra levels that make it an interesting topic.

For one, what specifically constitutes as a rival site? One that would take business and users away from the main base? In this day an age of technology, it isn't uncommon for people to keep up several accounts on several site in unison. In other words, one online product is not concealing out the other. They can be used side by side.

Secondly, level and nature of Other Site usage would be a factor. Obviously, talking smack about the former site would warrant removal from position without question. Obviously, said individual isn't so fond of the job either. However, where is the line drawn at say--simple criticism? Simple opinion?

Thirdly, what kind of message does this send to the rest of the communities of said websites involved, when one is deemed "rival"? Especially pertaining to certain sites that fill similar niches and line of thought, so to speak. It removes, with a clear statement, any sort of camaraderie with the Other Site. And while this may not be the intention nor reason, it has the potential come off as so.

Just curious as to the opinions of the rest of the forum. Now obviously, I've made an apparent attempt to refrain from using any specific sites or names (with a few, well known exceptions). If you have any sort of sense or any urge to properly discuss this in a mature setting, you'll know this'll prolly be the one shot.

Don't screw it up.

Disclaimer: Now, obviously some mods/admis are required to agree to certain terms and such. In such a case--yes that's an agreement that was made and must be fulfilled. However, that's not the question. The question is simply--should they?


The Cat in the FAF
No. What moderators and other users do on other sites is their business. As long as they do their jobs here, what does it matter what they do elsewhere?

As far as what constitutes as a rival site, I'd say any site that has a large userbase that has strong displeasure for the site in question, or any site made with a similar purpose and similar functionality.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
No I don't think so.

It's not a double-agent in an international conflict, it's a dude helping out rule enforcement of two sites.


smell-good badger
Not at all. I think anything that happens outside of FA should stay outside of FA.
But you know, that's just like, my opinion, man... big brother be watching


The Wild And Crazy Hybrid
No, hell fucking no.

I am saying that as by doing so will sow discontent and animosity between sites, not to mention, it would help the sites improve (especially if site "A" has rules that may benefit site "C" and vice-versa), help sites communicate (getting word out about possible trouble, trolls, stalkers, etc) and creates teamwork.

Also, I feel it is wrong on all levels to remove a site or forum moderator for being a member of a 'rival' site. To me that shows extreme pettiness by a site's admin staff members.
Last edited:


AFP's Most Unwanted
Sounds like it's more hassle than it's worth.

Does "multi-modding" create issues or other problems for the forum?


Nope! As long as they do their job here, whats the problem? Maybe they need a higher dose of furry drama to keep them satisfied!


Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
I would only remove a moderator if they were to become involved with a hostile or antagonistic site that was geared towards undermining my site or its mission (unless they were working as a mole), or with a rival site which by design tended to direct traffic or funds away from my site.

I would not remove a moderator, personally, if their involvement was merely with an alternative site that posed no direct or observable threat to mine. Many people with a particular hobby, philosophy, or interest will tend to frequent multiple sites devoted to that topic. In that regard, there's enough pie to go around, so to speak, and Ainoko suggested ways that cross-site communication and collaboration could serve to make both sites better and stronger in the long run. Additionally, if you remove a moderator because they're involved with a different website, you risk alienating your own user-base and firing up the rumor mill.
Last edited:


No. In fact it should be Mentoned when applying to volunteer on another website. Experience in managing helps.


New Member
That would depend on if they had signed or otherwise formally agreed to a volunteer contract with a non-competition clause. Were they passing on information that fell under a NDA that had been signed/agreed to? Is the time split between the two positions having a negative effect on their work?

Were they waiting for the right time to printscreen the Admin forums, make the images into memes and post them in a public/mocking manner as their 'fuck off I'm leaving' post? (Don't laugh, I saw a mod do that once on a furry forum. >.>;; Or do, it was hilarious enough that I still have some of the images.)

If the answer to all of the above is no, then working with/for a competing website should not be an issue. Other reasons for removal might still apply.


Nyaa nyaa~
It depends if they are paid or not.

If they are not paid, then no. By no means should a "volunteer" be fired if they are also help on a "rival" site. However, if they are paid, then yes, it's a conflict of interest to pay someone who also helps a "rival"
I find the very notion of "rival sites" to be fallacious. Whatever happened to live and let live? How is another site hurting the first site by its mere existence?


The Last of Us.
No, i've been a moderator of several pet insect keeping sites, the whole goal of everyone should be the wellbeing of the entire hobby, not one individual site.


The hell am I reading, here?
Why, I think that if a site I visited did this, it would just drive me to go to that "rival" site instead. Following the staff that originally made the first site good while leaving its bullshit behind, it makes loads of sense.


FAF's #1 Terrorist
I don't see why it matters so no.

Big businesses do that because employees working for a rival company can leak secrets to the other.

But you don't get fired from McDonalds just because you work at Burger King too.


Nyaa nyaa~
I don't see why it matters so no.

Big businesses do that because employees working for a rival company can leak secrets to the other.

But you don't get fired from McDonalds just because you work at Burger King too.

As someone who has worked at both, unless they changed the rules, yes you do. >.>


FAF's #1 Terrorist
As someone who has worked at both, unless they changed the rules, yes you do. >.>
Unless it's somehow effecting your work, they can't just let you go like that.

What I mean is that simply working there doesn't get you fired or there would not only be a lot of public outcry but a lot of people only working one job.

The risk isn't that great in other words


*drinking your brain juices*
Should they? No. Can they? Well, we know the answer to that. What a lot of people don't see are the behind the scenes politics and such. It's not fair by any means but it happens.


Shepherd of Fire
Since it's a voluntary position you're giving up your free time to do.....no. Just, no.