Topic: Moderator accountability

[George]

Thread has now been pruned of all post non mix powder related and record archived of pruned content.
Back to mix powder 

On the one hand I don't think that CH's action is such a bad idea but, when I suggested some pruning on another thread a few weeks ago, most people were strongly against, so what do you think of CH's action and if you support him, what's the difference? I strongly believe that moderators should be accountable - that's why I opened my feedback thread under the (members only) suggestions section.  I hope CH will see this thread as potentially useful feedback and will not attempt to stifle any debate.

[curryhell]

Of course i've seen it George.  To be very clear, exactly what is the purpose of this thread?  At the moment i am struggling to see any value in it.  But maybe i'm missing something  I don't doubt it will attract some comments but it would be good if people could understand exactly what they're meant to be commenting on.  Is it about yours and my accountability or about my pruning of  a thread 

[George]

CH - The purpose of this thread is to gain some idea of how members compare and contrast my attempt at a consensual decision re. thread pruning to your approach of simply doing what you think is best without any consultation. I would tend to agree that the pruning of off-topic posts is not such a bad idea but when I tried it, there were howls of protest. Perhaps as you are the person deleting many posts, various members will find it more acceptable.

[curryhell]

Thank you for clarifying the purpose George.  Having said that i'm not sure what long term gain this post will have for the forum or its members.  It could simply result in one mod being played off against the other, which isn't its real purpose, is it?  .  Maybe it would be more beneficial to give members the opportunity to express what their expectations are of you and I as moderators  I am sure many have views on what should and should not be done, how a moderator should and should not behave as well as whether a moderator should have the the choice of which hat he wishes to wear when posting  
Ultimately, the gain for the forum will only come when both of us review all the feedback and agree to moderate in line with the members requests and suggestions 
I am sure people have plenty to say about both of us and our styles of moderation.  I'm more than happy to listen providing the comments are of a constructive nature and the opportunity is not simply used as an excuse to make personal attacks.  Does that suit you?  If so, then let the members begin to post and the forum move forward 

[Sverige]

Since Curryhell has the necessary social awareness, diplomacy and leadership skills, I'm fully supportive of him pruning threads as necessary to fulfill his role of moderator effectively. You on the other hand George....
 
By the way this thread should have been started in the forum administration section of the forum, so you've demonstrated you can't even use the forum right, let alone correct other people's use of it.  :

[Peripatetic Phil]

Thread has now been pruned of all post non mix powder related and record archived of pruned content.
Back to mix powder 

On the one hand I don't think that CH's action is such a bad idea but, when I suggested some pruning on another thread a few weeks ago, most people were strongly against, so what do you think of CH's action and if you support him, what's the difference? I strongly believe that moderators should be accountable - that's why I opened my feedback thread under the (members only) suggestions section.  I hope CH will see this thread as potentially useful feedback and will not attempt to stifle any debate.

The problem, as I see it, is that when a moderator uses his/her privileges as moderator to delete either individual messages that he/she has posted, or an entire thread to which he or she has contributed, then that moderator, if he/she acts unilaterally and without consultation with his/her fellow moderator, lays him/herself open to justifiable accusations of abuse of privilege.  Clearly the expectation is (and should be) that no moderator will ever post anything that contravenes the terms and conditions to which he/she (and the rest of us) agreed when we signed up for membership, but sometimes matters get a little fraught and even the best-intentioned moderator may occasionally post something that he or she later regrets.  But it is then /essential/ that, rather than unilaterally delete his/her post(s), either individually or as part of a mass-deletion or the deletion of an entire thread, he/she should consult with his/her fellow moderator, agree a course of action (which may well be the deletion of the offending message(s)), and then post a message, counter-signed by both, that says that they have jointly agreed to the message(s) being deleted. 

Clearly when Stu appointed Curryhell as co-moderator, he fully expected that CH and George would work together for the common weal and for the good of the forum.  So far, this has sadly not been the case, as was exemplified by yesterday's quite inexcusable series of personal attacks by and on each, but there is still time to rectify this.  Curryhell and George, I call upon you publicly to work together, to put aside when moderating any personal differences that you may have,  to agree a policy for firm-but-fair moderation, and then to /agree/ and implement a course of action, rather than act unilaterally, whenever moderation is required in the future.

** Phil.

[Naga]

Oh! Put a sock in it, Phil. George should go. As he vowed to. Problem solved.

[Peripatetic Phil]

Oh! Put a sock in it, Phil. George should go. As he vowed to. Problem solved.

And a new problem created.  A third moderator (cf. CA, George) capable of acting unilaterally, of deleting his/her own messages retrospectively when it suits, of deleting entire threads without explanation, and with no checks and balances to ensure that the moderator is him/herself moderated.  Those old enough to remember have already lived through two such reigns and abuses of power; surely no-one would really want this to happen for a third time.  Either George must stay or a further moderator must be appointed -- never again must this forum be left open for abuse by a sole moderator who starts out meaning well and ends up a despot, abusing the very privileges with which he or she has been entrusted.

** Phil.

[Naga]

...The one person who I would be prepared to accept as a co-moderator would be Secret Santa. If you [curryhell] or almost anyone else is signed up, then I will resign.

That's it in a nutshell. I, for one, have full confidence in curryhell. Even if you don't. My last word on this. Fact.

[George]

I'm starting to come round to the point of view that CH's appointment as a moderator might be useful after all. I only pruned a thread of off-topic posts once (my feedback thread) and there were howls of protest, perhaps because I haven't posted enough recipes or photos to earn the kind of respect which CH has enjoyed (until recently). CH pruned the 'mix powder' thread of off topic posts this weekend and everyone seems happy. I agree with the concept of that kind of pruning and CH has done a good job, like somebody pruning a shrub, so it looks tidy rather than a mess.

I never locked any thread but if I had, I'm sure CH and others would have complained. CH locked my feedback thread and everyone seems happy but how long will the apparent love affair with CH's quite frequent post deletion and thread-lockings last? Let's review the situation in a few months/years time.

Yes, I previously wrote that I would resign but it was a bluff, like politicians frequently do. I changed my mind when I could start to see that CH might prove useful.