Campaign to Reinstate Jersey as a Mod

[_Mercury]

and clamping down on references to male anatomy?

Penis

[_Jersey Girl]

Holy Moly! What's to moderate here except the correct placement of threads into their various glories and clamping down on references to male anatomy? I'm quite sure some of the mods can't stand me (personally or my opinions), but I've had nothing to complain about.

That's true enough, bc. The mods essentially have no power on this board.

[_beastie]

I just can't figure out why anyone would WANT to be a moderator. It's a thankless, time consuming job.

But I didn't have any problems with Jersey Girl, and think that it's fine when mods choose to refrain from moderating certain individuals. During my time as a mod at ZLMB, there were mods that had a standing policy not to deal with certain posters - often due to friendship bias, but sometimes due to confrontational relationships that led the mod to doubt his/her own ability to be fair to the poster. I think that's a positive, when a mod is open about possible bias and asks other mods to deal with those cases.

[_Fortigurn]

I just can't figure out why anyone would WANT to be a moderator. It's a thankless, time consuming job.

But I didn't have any problems with Jersey Girl, and think that it's fine when mods choose to refrain from moderating certain individuals. During my time as a mod at ZLMB, there were mods that had a standing policy not to deal with certain posters - often due to friendship bias, but sometimes due to confrontational relationships that led the mod to doubt his/her own ability to be fair to the poster. I think that's a positive, when a mod is open about possible bias and asks other mods to deal with those cases.

On every forum of which I've been a mod, there have been standing 'anti-conflict of interest' rules stating:

* Mods are not to moderate threads in which they are currently involved

* Mods are not to moderate threads in which family members are currently involved

* Mods are not to moderate posts by specific individuals with whom they have an acrimonious relationship

I thought these were very sensible rules, and I've always assumed other forums had them.

[Jersey Girl]

edited for too much crudity....

[_beastie]

by the way, fort, good to see you again.

[_Fortigurn]

Thanks beastie, I've been reading a lot of your posts on Mesoamerica both here and on MAD (as well as in that very useful link of yours), and I have to compliment you for being so thorough. I've been away spending time on Biblical archaeology, which has proved very satisfying.

[_Jason Bourne]

82% to 17% for reinstatement. I have not read the thread but for hecks sake!! She did a fine job as a mod. Put her back. NOW Dang it all!

You have a way with words. ;-)

Yea my Utahness is showing through. If people were not so mean and ingerent all would be well. :-)

[_Jersey Girl]

I just can't figure out why anyone would WANT to be a moderator. It's a thankless, time consuming job.

But I didn't have any problems with Jersey Girl, and think that it's fine when mods choose to refrain from moderating certain individuals. During my time as a mod at ZLMB, there were mods that had a standing policy not to deal with certain posters - often due to friendship bias, but sometimes due to confrontational relationships that led the mod to doubt his/her own ability to be fair to the poster. I think that's a positive, when a mod is open about possible bias and asks other mods to deal with those cases.

On every forum of which I've been a mod, there have been standing 'anti-conflict of interest' rules stating:

* Mods are not to moderate threads in which they are currently involved

* Mods are not to moderate threads in which family members are currently involved

* Mods are not to moderate posts by specific individuals with whom they have an acrimonious relationship

I thought these were very sensible rules, and I've always assumed other forums had them.

Fort,

That's essentially how I conducted myself as well. I maintained personal policies that included refraining from moderating certain posters in order to avoid the appearance of bias and/or favortism and also didn't take mod action on threads where I was heavily involved in topical debate/discussion. I don't think there's any other way to do it in my view.

[_Fortigurn]

Jersey Girl, I haven't been here for months, so I can't speak for your moderatorship either way. But based on my personal experiences with you on this forum, you would have my confidence vote if it were relevant.

I was a moderator for a Christian forum for several years. Eventually I resigned. The emotional energy and the time wasted arguing with other mods (not to mention posters), simply wasn't worth it (and this was on a highly moderated forum, with strict guidelines). I know how maddening and thankless a task it can be. I sympathize greatly with your current position, and I agree with you entirely on anti-conflict guidelines.