Moderators role

Great Bustard wrote:

Clearly. But they are intended to be fair and even-handed, no? And do you really think a closed-door approach to moderation is the best way to achieve that?

All dictatorships "justify" themselves in the same manner.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not the biggest fan of democracy, myself, and am all too keen on how it can be corrupted, not the least of which by a tyranny of the majority. Also, a dictatorship with a benevolent dictator runs smoothly and efficiently for the benefit of all.

However, whether democracy, dictatorship, or anything in between, transparency helps keep them honest.

The argument against transparency, as I understand it, is that it is too much work for the mods. The mods need not reply to the complaints, or even read them -- participation is voluntary, not compulsory -- if they don't have the time or inclination.

But why are the mods so keen and willing to explain themselves via PM, but not in public? Seems something's amiss, no?