Originally Posted by David-A

Everyone who says they see a conflict of interest. How exactly?

Originally Posted by HIDDY

I used to be a member of mFT up until I deleted my account a few years ago. Since I left it seems to have become more of a club by invitation only rather than the public forum it once was which is a shame.

Must admit I do find it strange that some very high standing people on this forum still contribute regularly to a rival forum while using the same handles they have on FT. I would have thought there would be a conflict of interests there especially as this forums members were and still are by all accounts discussed in a rather derogatory way on the mFT forum.

Originally Posted by alwaysbanevervs

I agree regarding conflict of interest.

How can a mod or ambassador have an official role here whilst contributing to a competing forum? The bottom line for this forum is traffic - that is what keeps the advertising revenue coming in and keeps it going.

Also, if there is a 'secret' forum for the select few by invitation only, with similar handles, then it makes the impartiality of decisions taken by the mods on this forum less transparent. Really seems off.

I can't see any problems with a rival forum, even a secret one, but I can see a problem when the same members have authority on this forum.

Originally Posted by Yahillwe

You can try to be as clear as you'd like. I consider this to be a conflict of interest.

True that the mods job is as thankless as a parent's job, still transparency is out most.

I wouldn't want to be a mod (not that I have been asked or will ever be asked) but transparency is very important, otherwise their position is of no value.

Originally Posted by ColdWalker

I think this is what is being questioned LTN Phobia I'm afraid. I can see round the other side of the wall so I understand that some of you work very hard to maintain your professionalism. But for people who cannot see into a secret forum, but who hear from multiple sources that significant gossip and sniping takes place, it is harder to believe that moderators are not compromised.

Its a little like civil servants belonging to London clubs - it was perceived that the real decision making took place over a whiskey based on patronage and preference. Whether it was true or not matters not, that was the belief.

Getting very close to breaking a rule of discussing moderator actions. I hope you will agree I have kept to the right side of the line.