Originally Posted by
jackal
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)
Color me confused. Where have we seen this?
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.
Let's try it this way....
Member#1 makes a post
Member#2 clicks and marks the post as helpful
Members 3, 4, & 5 report the post saying the post is not helpful
Moderators review the post and while not helpful, it is accurate post and within ToS (i.e. "sorry, and no matter what you may think, what the agent told you is correct"*)
Is a moderator supposed to "un-helpful" the post?
*sorry, and I know there's a better example, but that's the best I can come up with on a lazy Saturday night sleep deprived Sunday
