QUOTE(Trouble @ Jul 8 2009, 12:43 PM)
Just be aware that by allowing a moderator to fulfill both roles, the propensity for suspicion among the public will always persist. By itself this would not sound like much of a caveat until you add a well-defined rule policy.
The opposite can happen as well. In the case of a board where moderators do not participate in any posting, suspicion as to who those mysterious, busy-body, so-and-so's are and the associated bad feelings can (and, in my experience, does
) happen as well.
On a site where the moderators are regular participants other users get to know them, and it's harder to assign roles in a grand conspiracy to those you know.
Though politics often throws a monkey wrench into such things. Having created/run a few discussion boards for various recreational pursuits (and moderated on some others) I always insisted on "no politics and no religion" rule (Ironic isn't it
). Both subjects are a fast lane to bad feelings among users. It can't really be avoided on a site such as this though I am constantly amazed at how well
I can't think of anything positive that could come out of a publicly open moderation process. I can however think of many negatives (all discussed already in earlier posts for the most part). Ultimately it comes down to the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it
" While people will of course differ as to what is or is not broke,
is the most pleasant, non-partisan political debate site I've ever seen or even heard of. As such, I'd like to suggest we avoid tinkering (though Mike will never fully agree to that