Originally posted by Curtis
Having as little moderation as possible in the Library is a good thing, but we've had multiple examples (Kostly, Brenda, the list goes on) of why moderation is needed in the Forum.
The list doesn't go on very far, Curtis. That's my point. In two or three years here, I've probably seen less than five individuals who needed, um, discipline. For this we need half a dozen moderators, super-moderators, and above them all the Supreme and Benign Wizard of Aahhhhhs, Jinn, himself?

Not to mention more tedious threads about moderating and group politics and dynamics than we have about writing and reviews? (Or at least it seems like it to this reader)

As FF so aptly puts it "How many posts have we really edited... how many people have we banned?" Very few ... because there have been very, very few posters and threads which really and truly required intervention, even though we've belabored the point endlessly.

Trolls and trouble-makers are self-identifying and easily ignored. We don't need an armada of moderators to tell us when there's an idiot in our midst. And don't misunderstand, I have nothing against any of the moderators as indidividuals; I've had nothing but friendly exchanges with most, if not all, of them. I have no personal axe to grind, here. No one is bothering me or preventing me from putting my occasional two cents in about something. I just don't find the forum as entertaining as I used to. It's like a subcommittee meeting in here, any more.

Once in a great while someone will come along who needs to be kicked out; fine, we can do it when the time comes. But in my opinion we don't need to bring in the SCHISM (Supreme Court Harnessing Innumerable Sadists and Masochists :-) ) to do it.


Boccaccio