Topic: Moderator accountability

[Peripatetic Phil]

Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community.
Which to me George has none of the above.
But you carry on supporting him Phil, for whatever reasons you may have.

I agree with many of your points, Martin, but as you will see from my message to George above, I do not support him when I feel that he may be in the wrong, just as I do not support Curryhell when I feel that he may be in the wrong.  Neither has shown the respect to the other that should be expected of all forum members, and when one moderator publicly attacks another (as each has done), it brings the whole concept of moderator into disrepute.  A moderator should behave like Madam Speaker in the Lower House -- respected by all, she warns any member when he or she is stepping out of line, but always using parliamentary language so to do.  If our two moderators want to disagree with each other, then they should do so in private (face-to-face, or via PM); in public, they should present a united front, support each other, and set an example to the rest of us.  Sadly neither has done this to date.

** Phil.

[littlechilie]

I believe he means clique Phil!  ;D :

SS, fortunately for me I don't discriminate regarding race, colour, or education! It's a shame people still feel the need in modern times!

I think SS was just trying to be helpful, Little Chillie.  Had it not been for his helpful explanation, I would never have understood what you were trying to say.  As to there being a clique, I am afraid you could not be more wrong -- I have lost count of the number of times that SS, George and I, in some combination, have disagreed with each other, sometimes expressing ourselves in less than moderate language which we might with the benefit of hindsight regret, but on the one issue of the need for better moderation on this forum, I believe that we are, for once, united.

** Phil.

Phil, please don't insult my undereducated intelligence! But I do appreciate the gesture.
LC

[Peripatetic Phil]

Phil, please don't insult my undereducated intelligence! But I do appreciate the gesture.
LC

No insult was intended, Little Chillie; you have my word on that.
** Phil.

[George]

Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community. 

All those attributes count for nothing when it comes down to being a moderator, as can be seen by CH's very bad start. You'd probably claim he has many of the skills you list. Was it because of that, or in spite of it, that CH started locking threads and deleting posts, just because he disagreed with some of the opinions?

No, the best attribute, as I think I proved is restraint, in terms of locking nothing and deleting very, very few posts apart from pure spam. Plus the deletion of bad language, written by people who do it deliberately in order to stir up trouble.  It's the only way. CH denied he aspired to moderate MORE but the doubters were proved right.

[littlechilie]

Phil, please don't insult my undereducated intelligence! But I do appreciate the gesture.
LC

No insult was intended, Little Chillie; you have my word on that.
** Phil.

Much appreciated Phil.
LC

 

[Secret Santa]

Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community.

I agree with all of that other than that the person has to be a contributing member. The art of moderating requires no contribution from the moderator whatsoever. The fact that almost all moderators happen to be contributors as well dos not change that fact.

[martinvic]

While in concept I agree that is true, I have never known that to be the case on the many forums/groups I frequent.
Can't see how a moderator can't be a knowledgable, contributing member.
Surely that's how their decisions are respected?

[DalPuri]

I say sack em both!  ;D
Neither has what it takes to be a moderator.
A mod should ALWAYS bite their tongue and NEVER bite back. It was obvious to me and anyone else who has been around long enough to know that George and Dave was never going to work.
If admin was more involved over the past few years, he would've realised that too.
As members, I have no problem with them saying whatever they like. Ive enjoyed their occasional rants and spats over the years, its this passion and low level moderation that got me hooked.
But as moderators.. NO!  It should never happen.


Stephen Lindsay
Graeme
Les.
These are the types of members who make good mods. Always around, never fighting or sniping and I believe, would diffuse a bad situation rather than fueling it.

[GulfExpat]

I think you should be the new mod Dal Puri!  ;D

[loveitspicy]

Its always the same on a forum - there are many with thin skins regardless of whom who like to give a little to a post but cant take it back...

The moderation of this site has been done solely by George for a long time and he has done a great job!

There are a couple of folks on here that must be out of the time of Shakespeare with their golden shrouded words and terminology - which to us educated normal folks go straight over our heads to the amusement of others - yet when it comes down to making a curry do they contribute anything even with 3,000 plus posts  most are just words - the moderating of the site is OK (was ok) how many moderators do you require for less than 20 constant contributors and 120000000000000 visitors, guests and non contributors

amazing this thread - im sure there are many visitors laughing


best, Rich