Hmm, I guess there are no good mods according to your definition. The problem with biases is the rarity of one recognizing they have one, you and I both included. We could bring up my one year ban for not being nice when I wasn't mean compared to statements from someone like aussieoi who was given chance after chance after chance after chance after chance. Get my point? But aussieoi was anti church so he got the pass time and time again. I'd love to see your reasoning on that one! :ymsick:Jules wrote:A good mod on this forum moderates whether they agree with the situation or not. That means you moderate your own friends who are breaking the rules, and you moderate those you agree with who are breaking the rules. As a moderator, you commit to uphold the forum rules whether you agree with the rules or not. You respect that this is Brian's place, and you do things according to the way he wants them done, not your own personal preference. It also means you tolerate all the abuse you get from people who think you are being unfair and "satanic" - and from those who think you are victimizing them and not moderating others who break the rules.shadow wrote:Yes, a non Snuffer would be a wonderful idea to even things up even if it's just barely. Other past mods like Jason and chelC saw the one sided hypocrisy and backed out or left completely.sen6b wrote:Maybe You should have mods on both sides of the issue. The snuffer mod can keep the Brethrenites in line and vise versa. Just a thought.
Sorry Jason and ChelC couldn't handle it.
In fact my so called meanness was right in line in context with Brent's meanness. Of course he was never banned, but then he's anti church too. No pattern to see folks, keep towing the same line. Those silly biases.
But that's all water under the bridge. I'm glad Brian sees a need for improved moderating.