[Registered]

The mods do a great job, I have been on the receiving end of their moderating and although sometimes I disagree with what they have done, feel they do a good job.

As far as MAF and Dales go, I'm sure they are following your guidelines, or they would have been booted from moderating.

That being said, I still believe that mods should not be a secret (we see how well that has worked), and that they should be rotated from an in-house list of qualified FReepers that are willing to help and finally, while they are Moderators they should be prohibited from posting under their screenname, or from creating a secondary screenname for posting while wearing the moderator badge.

To me, a moderator is a referee, to allow the ref to play, and play as an unidentified ref, is not fair, and only creates a feeling of bias.

But the folks that are doing it now, do a great job and should be thanked, not slammed.

[tpaine]

That being said, I still believe that mods should not be a secret (we see how well that has worked), and that they should be rotated from an in-house list of qualified FReepers that are willing to help and finally, while they are Moderators they should be prohibited from posting under their screenname, or from creating a secondary screenname for posting while wearing the moderator badge.
To me, a moderator is a referee, to allow the ref to play, and play as an unidentified ref, is not fair, and only creates a feeling of bias.
-Registered-

---

Well said, - and a good idea.

Needless to say, ideas like it were rejected out of hand shortly after the mods first became a problem.. No doubt they will be ignored now..
Which is a shame..

FR shoulda been a contender..

[Quix]

Sound like reasonable points worth careful pondering.

[Salo]

For what it is worth (nothing ;-) ), I think this is an excellent suggestion. The current moderator system seems very Star Chamberish to me. Your house, Mr. Robinson, your rules. I hope I'm not marked for death now. :-)

That being said, I still believe that mods should not be a secret (we see how well that has worked), and that they should be rotated from an in-house list of qualified FReepers that are willing to help and finally, while they are Moderators they should be prohibited from posting under their screenname, or from creating a secondary screenname for posting while wearing the moderator badge.

[WRhine]

The mods do a great job, I have been on the receiving end of their moderating and although sometimes I disagree with what they have done, feel they do a good job.

You are right. They have done a great job. A great job at pulling the flowers and watering the weeds on FR. For all intents and purposes FR might as well be a subsidiary of the RNC. The Party Hacks are allowed to run wild, flame away with impunity with foul language, slander or whatever language they see fit while (the remaining) conservatives that have MANY problems with Today's “Compassionate” GOP under Bush are always one step away from being banished.

BTW, I saw that little missive you directed to BADJOE on LP tonight. Really, I had to laugh given that hissy fit of yours with JR last year over that controversy you had with a well-known poster here. Gawd, some people just can't see themselves as they are. Have you got past the emotional age of 10 yet?

[Sabertooth]

I still believe that mods should not be a secret (we see how well that has worked), and that they should be rotated from an in-house list of qualified FReepers that are willing to help and finally, while they are Moderators they should be prohibited from posting under their screenname, or from creating a secondary screenname for posting while wearing the moderator badge.

To me, a moderator is a referee, to allow the ref to play, and play as an unidentified ref, is not fair, and only creates a feeling of bias.

You're imagining things, all of it.

[Dales]

Hi Registered.

I read your suggestions. I appreciate them, and I will think them over more, but my first inclination is not positive.

First off, regarding the rotation: one of Jim's biggest problems to date with Free Republic has been in trusting people who could not and should not have been trusted. FAB, FRN, the chapters, the forum itself, and even the mod program have suffered from having people act untrustworthy. A small, static number of freepers who are replaced only on an as-needed basis strikes me as being a good way to minimize this risk. Vetting people, in an online environment, especially when you have no desire to pry into a person's personal life, is simply too difficult to do.

As for the idea that 'refs' should not 'play', I also disagree. My disagreement stems from three places. 1) It is by posting that people develop reputations with most of the Freepers. Our reputations are what made 'coming out' work. And if you don't use it, you lose it. 2) Those who are mods shouldn't be forced to abandon their posting. You don't reward hard-working, trustworthy volunteers by imposing penalties on them. 3) The perception of bias is always going to be there, for at least two reasons: a) There is a certain percentage of people who are always going to be suspicious, b) there is a certain percentage of people who have a vested interest in creating said suspicions and exploiting them (forums that want our audience, groups that want to make Free Republic fail, etc.).

I think the ref analogy sort of proves my point about the perception of bias being ever present, anyway. Go to any youth football league's games, and you will hear certain parents muttering about bias among the referees, who don't play. It is the nature of the beast.

The simple fact is that it boils down to if one trusts Jim or not. He has said he provides, and he does provide, oversight of all moderator activities. If one does take Jim at his word, then other measures to prevent a perception of bias are unnecessary-- because the bias in the system is a reflection of his bias, which can never be eliminated as it is his forum. If one doesn't, then other measures may help but will never remove such a perception.

The degree of mitigation in this regard that your suggestions would provide is unknown, but strikes me as probably not being worth the cost. The cost of added risk, the cost of losing some excellent volunteers who wouldn't want to give up their posting rights, the cost of losing the contributions in-forum of those who would, in order to minimize (but not eliminate) a perception (not reality) problem does not strike me as the way to go.

I am conservative not just by political ideology, but also by nature and instinct. We have just made a fairly substantial (and unplanned) change, by all moderators making their role public. To me, it makes sense to step back and wait, and see how things go right now, before making another course adjustment. Perhaps one won't be needed. Perhaps a stronger one will be. Or one in another direction.

Also by nature and instinct, I am one who believes in autonomy of decisions being pushed downward. I believe states making laws rather than the federal government is a far better setup, because it lets what's right for one to be one way, while what's right for another be another. We have one mod who pretty much has given up posting, altogether. We have one who has taken a new screen name. We have another, me who has another screen name, but hasn't quite decided what he is going to do; I know that at a minimum I am going to continue to do whatever polling tracking and analysis I do under this name. We have a few who are posting frequently. This diversity of approaches will hopefully, over time, give us some indication of which approach is the best.

But as I said earlier, I will give your suggestion more thought, and keep it in mind as things unfold over the coming weeks and months. I am also pinging the others. You see, on the question of those with 'the badge' not posting, I may be biased since I enjoy posting. I enjoy debating. I enjoy making joking comments. I enjoy the banter. I still believe what I believe, but since it also happens to overlap with what I personally would prefer, let's get some other eyes on it.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I still believe that mods should not be a secret"

Dittoes...I believe AMs should be almost like DeeJays on the radio, celebrated for the times they are moderating. If there are AMs a FReeper's got problems with, they could then refrain from posting during a particular moderator's time slot.

In a lot of ways, the secrecy poisons the FReepers' trust in this wonderful website.

IMHO, of course...MUD

[chicagolady]

Yeah just wait till they do something you do not like.
I thought their job was to piss people off!