motnot:
I'm not necessarily opposed to moderators, as long as it is more of a bully pulpit to encourage civility, and only very sparingly used to keep people on topic if a tangent arises.
I respectfully disagree. Online conversations go on tangents, just as verbal ones do - and that is something that is pretty neat. It is only when the thread goes on a destructive/offensive tangent that I think the moderator should step in.
I also wouldn't mind seeing a moderator be surgical in editing when possible. For example, if someone posts a message where only a sentence or two is destructive/offensive, remove that sentence, but leave the rest intact.
Of course, defining "offensive/destructive" is an argument unto itself.
And as far Randy entrusting our members rather than a paid member of his staff, I don't have a problem with it.
(1) Randy already carries enough of the fiscal burden for FT - paying an employee to moderate just adds to the expense.
(2) It keeps a little more independence. While some may not be happy with Randy's laissez-faire approach to FT when the flame wars break out, I believe a BIG reason that FT brings so many diverse points of view together is that it is NOT inhabited by yes-men/yes-women, seeking to curry Randy's favor.
(3) There is no shortage of FT'ers who can do the job. There are a lot of objective folks here.
And if this will be done via democratic process, I nominate
Punki!
------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."