Robben_DuMarsch wrote:Austinh15 wrote:Robben_DuMarsch wrote:Now that's much more reasonable.
Could it be that you can now concede I wasn't trying to attack anyone, but instead draw attention to the difficulties of being a moderator these days, and my intent was merely to in good faith suggest an anonymous moderator would address some potential issues?
If that's the headline of your comments, then I'll take it. Moderating this hell hole would be tough. And I think your idea isn't bad but I think accountability is still a crucial part of a position of power, no?
I would sooner put multiple biased opposing moderators in a circus and let Jorb be their tired ring master. That sounds like a delightfully disasterous decision that I'm NOT endorsing. I just simply started thinking about checks and balances. Maybe there's a way to enforce neutrality?
I understand your thinking, and it seems sound. Unfortunately in other contexts we usually operate with the assumption that someone is going to hopefully be unbiased unless they've got some clear conflict of interest.
We've made that bar pretty high by fighting over this, no? Not even poor Pills was found to be unbiased enough lol.
I'm more of a "assume everyone is biased and put systems in place to make that not a problem" kinda guy. Fairly jaded over the years. Our discourse is pretty good if not for anything than to show Jorb people care, and I trust Jorb will make his moves with that in mind.