balanced moderating

[SlimyLimey]

Regarding a certain moderator on this site. I rarely agree with his opinions, but do support his right to them. His shots at other posters are not exactly what one expects from a mod. but that is his personality.

I met him some years ago & found him to be (almost) human.

[Gaspode]

there is however a difference between having an opinion and posting deliberately provocative comments (bordering on WUM behaviour) - and as you say Slimey, hardly the way you would expect a moderator to behave...

[KingCharlieGeorge]

there is however a difference between having an opinion and posting deliberately provocative comments (bordering on WUM behaviour) - and as you say Slimey, hardly the way you would expect a moderator to behave...

Absolutely. It appears that it is the sole decision of Bloomer then? What I find irksome is that some posters have been banned for arguing with the said mod and presumably all 4 mods have agreed the ban despite the provocation from the one mod. I have been threatened with a ban more than once for merely liking a post. I've liked 3 or 4 above, so that's me asking for trouble

[minesahartington]

Be careful boys or the FEDS will get you...
"Sep Rattea"

[Ramondo]

What I find irksome is that some posters have been banned for arguing with the said mod and presumably all 4 mods have agreed the ban

Not quite correct, Chris's comment about all mods agreeing was wrongly worded. If there is an issue that a mod wants an opinion on then it's not unusual for them to email the others to get an opinion. But normally cards are issued by the mod there and then, then an email is sent to the others to explain.

We don't always agree, Rattea disagreed with me over closing Tricky1972's two threads yesterday, I recall disagreeing with his decision to issue a card to someone last month. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, especially as it may be a day or two afterwards in some cases. Chris had a different thought on how to handle a poster who had posted under a couple of duplicate and misleading accounts, I have had some disagreements in the past with Bloomer about how he has handl

[roger_ramjet]

Serious trouble Charlie - it was 6 likes!!

So long...farewell...auf wiedersehn...goodbye

[Ramondo]

No Roger, he's liked one of mine on another thread, so I'll let him off!




DAMN!! Thats the hitler mod thing kicking in isn't it? ******, I need to work on that!

[Rattea]

I think what some are confusing is moderating and censorship. If you are to CENSOR posters for being perceived too negative then you have to CENSOR those for being too positive!

What a few want is to silence posters as they don't like what the post. If the want that then what the hell are they doing on a discussion board ... The need to join a sect or political party!

As for posters being banned that is always if they break the rules or other agendas. There is one who has fallen foul of that twice and at the editors discretion. Anyone knows the situation understand quite what issues they have.

If I'm honest there are probably things as a moderator I don't say which are still within the rules. If I myself weren't a moderator and acted and posted like others it might be quite liberating personally.

[dcfcdavecov]

I think what some are confusing is moderating and censorship. If you are to CENSOR posters for being perceived too negative then you have to CENSOR those for being too positive!

What a few want is to silence posters as they don't like what the post. If the want that then what the hell are they doing on a discussion board ... The need to join a sect or political party!

As for posters being banned that is always if they break the rules or other agendas. There is one who has fallen foul of that twice and at the editors discretion. Anyone knows the situation understand quite what issues they have.

If I'm honest there are probably things as a moderator I don't say which are still within the rules. If I myself weren't a moderator and acted and posted like others it might be quite liberating personally.

Link provided to wikipedia.

It was posted on another Derby forum, and as i was reading it i thought of you. But then, what if i have t

[Gaspode]

If I myself weren't a moderator and acted and posted like others it might be quite liberating personally.

But ask yourself:
- if someone appeared to be running a personal vendetta against another poster, would you consider their actions unacceptable? (whoever was right or wrong, your 'faildale' campaign was incredibly tiring for most posters who were trying to have a genuine discussion)
- if someone seems to only post views that are deliberately provocative, is that acceptable? (your anti-Rush rant of this morning had all the hallmarks of Es***Red at his worst - would you have been so forgiving of another poster if they had such a history of such provocation?)
I welcome discussion - it's what make these boards worth reading, but the mods should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us - when it's getting to the point of seeing a post appear from you, and thinking 'oh, here we go again', that suggests that something is wrong - t