Civilised Discussion on Moderation

Well the hijacking sure didn't take long...what was it, less than two days?

Originally posted by Crowley
This is fine, I could get behind this type of idea.

BUT

Firstly, who will be this 'arbiter'?

Secondly, I would want every user to have a very limited amount of appeals - something like recs. Say 2 per month.
If a the appeal is declined, then 1 appeal 'ticket' is used and if the appeal is upheld, then no 'ticket' is used.

Russ? Or possibly a board of volunteers that we vote on. With "re-elections" every year or so?

I like your second idea but I would say more than 2 a month.

everything is too complicated. this is not a democracy. this is a business. mods should just do what russ tells them to do. russ in turn should do what i want him to do. get mods who will make the forums useable by jane austin or elizabeth gaskell. this is the standard. no appeals. no discussion. play and or pay and play or move on to some other site. this is life in reinfelds town ( where russ will soon be lodging when he sees that i am right ). cranford village still knows manners.

Originally posted by Frank Burns
I've thought that the mods should be hired employees who are not in any other way affiliated with RHP. They can't be subscribers or members of any nature other than employees. They should be anonymous to the RHP community and devoid of any relationship with the owners of the site or the members of the site. Perhaps this would allow better consistency d ...[text shortened]... get notified by this staff that they need to get back in line with RHP's membership policies.

I don't think Russ would want to pay for a service he can get for free.

Originally posted by reinfeld
get mods who will make the forums useable by jane austin or elizabeth gaskell.

How do you make the fora usable by the dead?

Originally posted by Nordlys
How do you make the fora usable by the dead?

Can't they post in the infamous (Un)Dead Thread?!

Originally posted by Nordlys
How do you make the fora usable by the dead?

the ethreal net?😕

Originally posted by Crowley
[b]This is the problem with the likes of you.

Would that above comment carry any opinion at all? or Bias?

You need to answer that Crowley, in your own mind - not to me.

What MissO has raised here is the opportunity for moderators, including yourself, not to be shot at too! If they are unknown then there is no opinion or bias towards them.

I've picked you up here because your comment about Frank is loaded. As you being a moderator, I expect you to rise above comments like that. If you were unknown to me as a moderator then it is unlikely I would have picked you up on it. I would have just thought you were normal PFC scum and ignored it. However, you have responsibility to be fair minded as a mod, and not pre-empted in your decision making about certain people. I think you fail miserably in that last qualification.

See any significant difference in being an unknown moderator now?

And, to ask you further, if your function as a mod were unknown would you volunteer the same time?

Originally posted by mikelom
Would that above comment carry any opinion at all? or Bias?

You need to answer that Crowley, in your own mind - not to me.

What MissO has raised here is the opportunity for moderators, including yourself, not to be shot at too! If they are unknown then there is no opinion or bias towards them.

I've picked you up here because your comment about Fran ...[text shortened]... , to ask you further, if your function as a mod were unknown would you volunteer the same time?

Can you provide an example that shows a moderator's (preferably one from the PFC) biased opinion in the public forums affecting a moderating decision?

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Can you provide an example that shows a moderator's (preferably one from the PFC) biased opinion in the public forums affecting a moderating decision?

If I had the evidence after the event has happened then it wouldn't have taken place would it!

That doesn't really run in parallel with the point I was making though.

Originally posted by mikelom
And, to ask you further, if your function as a mod were unknown would you volunteer the same time?

Holy mother of god.

Do you really think I volunteer my valuable time because of some kind of power trip? Seriously?

Originally posted by mikelom
If I had the evidence after the event has happened then it wouldn't have taken place would it!

That doesn't really run in parallel with the point I was making though.

Stop claiming there is mod bias if you have no proof.

Originally posted by Raven69
Russ? Or possibly a board of volunteers that we vote on. With "re-elections" every year or so?

I like your second idea but I would say more than 2 a month.

Russ barely has the time now.

Volunteers voted in by some kind of popularity contest? I don't know about that.
It's better than nothing, I suppose.
If it will appease all the idiots who cry mod bias every single time one of their friends get a deserved forum ban or one of their posts gets removed - I'm all for it.

I would actually just give one ticket. This means people will think really hard if the post was worth it.

Originally posted by Raven69
Well the hija[b]cking sure didn't take long...what was it, less than two days?[/b]

Since I'm addressed in the thread title, I don't think me posting in here can really constitute a hijack.

Originally posted by Crowley
Since I'm addressed in the thread title, I don't think me posting in here can really constitute a hijack.

It is not the fact that you posted, it is what you posted. Things like "...who cares what they and their crackpot ringleader thinks anyway?" is not what one typically calls "Civilised Discussion on Moderation."