Moderating in Moderation

[Civicsman]

Moderators have difficult and generally thankless jobs. In most cases, their work is invisible. They do the housekeeping for the forum and they get no credit for this work. The visible part of their work is enforcing forum policies, and when this is necessary it is not uncommon for one or more posters to be unhappy with their actions.

Still, the policing actions of moderators are necessary to ensure that the discussions on the forum do not fall into disarray and fail to conform to the posted policies of the forum.

The question arises of whether forum moderators must follow the rules themselves, or whether they are a law unto themselves? Should forum moderators respect the forum policies and the forum members? When the forum policy says "It is not our intent to discourage Visitors or Members from taking controversial positions or expressing vigorously what may be unpopular views", does the moderator take that statement seriously? Or, do they secretly add "...unless I don't agree with what they say."?

Should moderators exercise great restraint with the "veto" power that allows them to make posts disappear? When they do delete posts, should they not then at least have the common courtesy to take public responsibility for their actions, and to clearly state their reasons for doing so, so that others may understand what transpired? Or, should they delete posts furtively? If so, to what end? Do they not owe it to their member base to provide some understanding of the the unstated REAL rules of posting, especially if those rules do not agree with the stated "Terms of Service"?

When moderators demonstrate honesty and integrity by taking responsibility for and explaining their actions, posters can decide for themselves whether it is worth taking the time to research and make a post. Why waste time if it might get deleted at someone's whim? Other readers can give thought to whether a given subject has been reasonably debated, or whether a moderator's personal perspectives might have colored the debate through selective deletions of posts that the moderator did not agree with.

By way of providing full disclosure, I have had some brushes with the moderator of this forum (or at least one of them). Without getting into details, let's just say I disagree with the moderating style. I'm a "by the book" kind of person. I don't appreciate the unwritten rules or favoritism shown in enforcement of rules, both written and unwritten. Now I find my posts being regularly deleted by a moderator, simply because he does not believe they are "worthy". One will not find that arbitrary and capricious rule anywhere in forum policies.

I fully expect this post to be deleted too. Not because it violates any policies of the forum. It does not. It IS an unpopular view, more unpopular with some than others, I trust, but this post is in the right category on the forum (Miscellaneous topics and for general social, non-Segway discussions) and violates no [written] policy of the forum. Is this post "worthy"? Will it survive deletion? Will I be "banned" for heresy? Who knows? Perhaps this post will survive long enough for other posters to consider whether arbitrary censorship of this forum is acceptable to them.

The "because I have the power to do it" philosophy of moderation is a dangerous and slippery slope. This forum deserves better.