Community Moderators

As prior posts I've made on this subject attest, I have qualms about this whole process -- because of its potential for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and because of its element of secrecy. I also am not wild about the idea in principle of allowing the moderators to be participants because their presence is inherently intimidating.

However, I am willing to give this a try to see how it works out. I do not see how you can expect someone to volunteer to do this job unless they have an interest in the threads, and I don't see how you can expect them to have an interest in the threads without being able to participate.

It would be different if the moderators were hired (paid) to do the job. Then I can see how you could expect them to do their job without another form of remuneration or return. The volunteer status makes things different. Again, as I say, I still have my doubts, particularly since I've already seen some moderator behavior and comments (not Stephen's) that make me wonder just what's ticking under the chaps' hoods. But I'm willing to give things a try and hope that unfortunate (broadly interpreted) moderator behavior can be addressed meaningfully via complaints.

Meanwhile, I think the attempt to make an analogy with sports referees is misplaced. In a sporting game there is an outcome, a win and a loss, and it clearly would be unfortunate for the referee to be able to participate in the legal action determining that outcome. They are there to be sure that illegal actions don't do so.

Here there is no win/loss outcome, and that difference (of major significance to my mind) removes any such parallels from relevance.

While moderator presence may be intimidating to some degree, I suspect we will all get used to it -- as long as the moderators don't attempt to impose their moderator activities in arbitrary and capricious ways, and as long as the powers that be take their responsibility very seriously to keep such moderator behavior out of the mix.

--
gollywop