@Cmdr:
In regards to your example post, I was on vacation. A certain person got me to stoop so far into the gutter trying to clean up his act, I got disgusted and needed some time off. So I missed that one.
As far as I’m concerned, no apologies are necessary. My understanding is that you and other list moderators donate your time on a volunteer basis. I certainly don’t expect every moderator to read every thread. I for one appreciate the work you and other volunteers do for this site. And I’m sure your vacation was much-deserved! :)
My earlier comment on this subject should be taken to mean that when a moderator does become aware of a personal attack, that moderator must take action of some sort if civility standards are to be maintained. At very least, the offending person should receive a warning. I’d like to thank Gargantua for bringing up a specific example in which a moderator did not take action after having become aware of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the example Gargantua referenced is part of a larger pattern.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that djensen will probably look at the raw data (the thread that Gargantua referenced), and form his own conclusions, independently of what anyone might write here. That being the case, I’d encourage both Imperious Leader and Gargantua to return to the original topic of this thread. That incident has been discussed enough, and further discussion would diverge from David’s original purpose in having created this thread.
To return to the subject of David’s original purpose, I’d suggest the following process.
1. David and others should envision these forums not as they are, but as we would wish them to be.
2. David will need to make decisions about the steps necessary to implement the vision in step 1.
3. One of those steps is to select the right list moderation policies to create the kind of list envisioned in step 1.
4. Another of these steps is to select the right list moderators to implement that vision.
Earlier, I’d mentioned another, very well-run discussion list of which I’m a member. That list only had one rule: don’t engage in personal attacks. Be as polite on the list as you would be at a social gathering at someone else’s home.
A good group of list moderators was chosen to enforce that one rule. These list moderators were known as level-headed, rational people. People who’d keep their cool, who could be trusted to remain impartial. The sort of people who did not pick fights with other list participants, and who reacted in a restrained, disciplined way when someone picked a fight with them. (They’d shown themselves to be this on other, more rough-and-tumble lists, which is why they were selected to moderate this list.) These people could also be trusted to enforce the list policies as written. They never abused their moderator powers, or took unwarranted action. Nor did they ever fail to oppose any violation of that list’s one rule.
Ultimately, it’s up to David to decide on an overarching vision for these fora. But to the extent that vision includes a place in which people can discuss things about which they feel passionately, without resorting to personal attacks or flames, he could do a lot worse than to choose moderators like the ones described above.
Once David has decided on the list’s new moderation policy, he’s going to need people he trusts to implement that policy, and only that policy. Jennifer, from what little I know of you, I get the sense that you have the kind of restraint and self-discipline necessary to fit into that plan.
