As a just recent Moderator of over 3 years experience, I can understand both sides of this discussion. It's true that mods do sometimes have inside info concerning certain posters and certain subjects, and recognize train wrecks many posts before it comes down to locking. There's things here that will eventually result in locks, just from either the mix of posters or the subject. It has happened so many times in the past and will continue to happen. As a mod, I tried to allow as much flexability to most discussions, while taking a 'nip it in the bud' approach to some few that were guaranteed to create dissention, no matter how much freedom of speech and allowing free flow of ideas were desired. There are subjects and posters who just cannot post more than 3 or 4 exchanges between them before feelings are hurt and people start complaining to the mods or taking sides. Not as many as 2 years ago, as some of the more flagrant antagonists left, but it still happens. Anyone who has been here a year or 2 can recognize certain posts and subjects as guaranteed to result in abuse of the rules or needless or excessive discussion being taken personally.
When I was moderator, I tried to allow the widest lattitude for discussion to go, further than the rules allowed in most cases. I felt that it was healthy, up to a point, to have some active disagreements talked thru. For that, I caught it from both sides, first by those who wanted things kept under firm control and then from those who wanted a moderator free free-for-all. I was a villian to both sides, in turn. Lesson learned? You can't please everyone, so you have to try to take a middle of the road approach and hope for the best. I know there are people here today who felt I was a weak, ineffective mod as well as those who felt I was a tyrant and still dislike me or begrudge some of my decisions. Neither side realize that there is a lot of 'behind the scenes' things that go on before reaching most decisions, including discussing with the owner his wishes as to how far the thing can go before he wishes it reined in. We tend to forget that this isn't a democracy, it is a private website, owned and funded by one person who greatly cares for others and wishes to provide a service, free of charge. But we must remember it's his playground, his ball and on his nickel, so he does get to set the rules. It isn't a free wheeling,
open exchange on the net, where internet freedom or anarchy, depends on the definition of the reader, reigns.
Threads starting about
certain items, such as Dr. Samadi, POM use, supplement recommendations, Purg's choices in his Journey, religion and healthcare, politics of healthcare, clashing ego's and a few others are guaranteed to create trouble within the first 6 to 10 posts. With me, it was just a mater of how far to let it go, so each side could have their say, before cutting it off, and I think that is probably the prevailing attitude and stance of our current mods. One thing for sure, you can't understand the strain and the pulling from all sides until you been there. Mods truly take on and perform that job out of love for the forum, it's members and the want to help mankind, especially those who may need a safe, info-laden, non judgemental place to learn about
this bomb that has exploded in their lives. As humans they can and will make mistakes, but I can assure you it isn't from wanting to be dictatorial, it's from wanting to do the most good for the most people and to help maintain a safe shelter in the storm.
Post Edited (James C.) : 4/15/2012 10:46:05 AM (GMT-6)