Originally Posted by
kipper
We've seen people complaining that others received likes while they did not. How is that not creating ill-will, or at least the potential for it?
Color me confused. Where have we seen this?
Originally Posted by
goalie
But we're not talking about a moderator editing a post here, we're talking (or at least the way I read it) about a post marked as helpful when it is not in fact that and what action a moderator is/is not to take-and THAT is a very big difference as I personally don't think moderators should be acting on what other members like/dislike/find helpful as then moderators are changing the opinion of another member. And with all of that, no one who has proposed or is actively supporting this issue has stated how that comes into play (or answered other questions for that matter but I digress)
Maybe I'm just in a confused state of mind, but can you clarify what you mean? I can't make out the point of your post.
It kind of sounds like you're saying that you do not believe moderators should be censors of inaccurate information. That's fine, and I don't see any proposal here to make moderators censors of inaccurate information.