I like JS's post, and it helps clarifies my own observation. My understanding is that the way moderation works on Usenet, in a moderated newsgroup, each post must be approved by a moderator. That's not at all what I would have in mind when I advocate moderation. Other boards/lists that I have experience with have moderators that work in the background to respond to posts/e-mails that don't conform to the board's/list's FAQ.

What I would envision is something like this. Each forum would have a moderator. There would also be a private board where the moderators would consult with one another. When an issue came up, a moderator could discuss it with the other moderators to determine whether action was warranted, then bring it up to the individual(s) involved privately (via e-mail). In most cases, issues would be dealt with discretely to avoid embarrassment to anyone. If an issue were not able to be resolved by the moderator, (s)he could raise it to the system administrator, who would have to decide what, if anything, to do.

In short, there should be as little interference as possible, and as little controversy. The idea is to let people stay on topic, which for us is points and miles and all things related (not including OMNI).

cblaisd: You might find the discussion in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum73/HTML/000096.html of interest. Even though I personally disagree, I would have to say, after floating the idea, that the community does not even want to allow the originator of a discussion thread to delete the thread in its entirety, much less delete individual posts from it.

(Edited to correct spelling errors.)

[This message has been edited by dgolds (edited 03-03-2001).]