A poster in another thread suggested the possibility that two 'other' members be appointed in a kind of over-arching role, responsible for perhaps liasing between and betwixt the moderators and the 'shop floor' (for want of a better phrase) In order to maintain a degree of harmony on this forum. This is what i felt personally:
Well....thats kind of over-egging the pudding dont you think. The moderators are there to help ensure (uphold) the smooth running of the site in accordance with the guidelines set by the gaffer and to an extent, the fundamental principles which are exclusive to the virtual realm we all are a part of here: (certain 'unwritten laws' also extend beyond the base requirements of that mandate) Such as, the anticipation (i avoided the word expectation for good reason) - that the majority of those willing to participate fruitfully and who intend to offer worthwhile input, can regulate their own business/behaviour on here - or at least thats the intention. The minority who choose otherwise, will fall foul of the rules and be held accountable as a result ***
Unfortunately that simple mantra will never exist as a working reality. There is simply too diverse a demographic to contain and impose the model effectively. The best you can achieve is balance and hopefully an objectivity which is both equal and fair to ALL parties. This is where topics are arising, discussing the very same thing. People are feeling a sense of injustice...of an 'impartiality' that isn't seen to be practised. Of favouritism and 'jobs for the boys' etc....
*** I can only speak from my own perspective here and nor would i want to pre-empt anyone's agenda. But, by and large - on the whole and even more 'ambiguously' - in the main. Those insinuations are not grounded in fact - they are not the 'way of things' (there ARE flaws...sure) But none of us (mods) set out to implicate or persecute one side of the 'fence'. Neither are there specific 'camps' targetted.....this really has snowballed into some half ar5ed 'urban myth' in my view.
The people who are banned are excluded for good reason. Thats all there is to it. They weren't turfed for being 'anti's..they weren't booted out because they dared to challenge the idea that everything in the garden is rosy. They haven't been sent to coventry because they contribute better than others - victimised.....No, they were ejected because they fully deserved to be.
And if that isn't clear, there really cannot be much more to say. There truly isn't any ulterior motive at work here....if i see the need for a card. I will issue one - regardless of who the recipient is. (My aim...is to avoid reaching that point at all) Although I think you'll discover everyone of the moderators follow the same criteria. In translation the minutia are never as interesting as the actual kerfuffle which follows though are they?.....and that is as much a part of why there is so much controversy stirred up, hornets nests disturbed - Fabricated 'tittle-tattle' and generally a sense of 'us against them' mentality.
Its not necessary and generates nothing but antagonisation and leads to pointless exasperation on the part of those who seem to think the whole world is on their shoulders. Or their 'mates' - Not the case. And if anybody needed to quote that last bit...let me rephrase: It is simply fantasy - maybe its a convenient one....but put quite bluntly, it IS bollox.