![Post Post](https://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/styles/lfc/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:18 am
by supersub
Just a few words relating to this thread because I haven't read the whole thing. I have always advocated self moderation...it would be easier for all concerned if the members helped themselves by being nice to each other.
got to rush
![Post Post](https://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/styles/lfc/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:30 am
by account deleted by request
Some interesting ideas Saint, no doubt your vehement disagreement of my recent sin binning of another member is whats inspired it.
It was actually a chat with another Mod that inspired it , not really connected to the banning of any member. Obviously my disagreement with your decision added spice to it, but no it didn't inspire it. I have in fact raised a similar idea before when questions about Modorating where being discussed.
On the broader issue of accountability. Whilst opening a general discussion on the subject is the perogative
of any forum member surely if members are not happy with a mods performance they should communicate their displeasure to the senior moderator (Supersub) who despite the implied question of his integrity does not automatically back a mod just because they are a mod. Repeated complaints about a mods performance if deemed valid will ultimately result in that mod being ejected from office.
Hopefully I neither implied or questioned Supersubs integrity, or I wouldn't have suggested that he head the comittee. I do however acknowledge peewee's point that Supersub or ANY MOD could feel he has to support and give backing to his fellow MOD's ,even if he feels an error of judgement has occured.
Mods are members too. And like all members they like to come in here talk/read a bit of footy, have a laugh sort out the spats and curb the wums and stirrers. If every decision a mod makes is going to be challenged (usually by the offender and/or his mates) I think you would find that many day to day moderating decisions will be let go, suspected wums will have more time in the forum, small flame wars will be allowed to burn into larger ones and those with their own agenda will find they have an even longer spoon with which to stir.
A fair enough point and one I raised, to which I have no real answer but the one I gave originally.... which was poor at best.
And there's the rub . Who exactly decides just who deserves it ? Whats the point of having moderators at all when there is a "committee" to vet all decisions. Perhaps mods should sit in their mod shop and only react to complaints received? or perhaps members should just complain directly to the "committee" ?.
Who decides who deserves it now? All the committee would be doing is making sure that mistakes, errors of judgement and personality clash errors didn't occur, or in short that the correct decision was made.
How long before we start a thread on the "Committee's" accountability ?
If the committee is seen to be fair and impartial hopefully a long time. At least it would give some sort balance to the vagueries of the individual MOD's.
We all know that at the moment different Mod's handle problems completely differently. Perhaps it would add a degree of consistancy ?