Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
There should be a position of “troll-buster” who might or might not be a Mod. I mean in the computer-savvy sense. One who could spot an Internet troll a mile away.
I believe it might be good if Mods we’re voted in by the membership....but the process might cause problems, too,
Probably best if they are selected by existing moderators, I would have thought... Less "opportunity" to add weight to the scales in favour of one side or another and more chance that some "impartial" (as much as possible) judgements on potential applicants based on past\present actions\behaviour would take place - A moderator SHOULD be neutral in any conflict, not seen by either party as having an obvious bias against them.
There aren't any conservative mods, atm.
The left-wing bias is one of the major problems here.
And we need more maturity, but I think the die has already been cast.
Bias isn't an issue if the person with it can recognise their natural bias and account for it in their decision making. It is an issue when the person with it is unaware (or worse still, while being aware of it, ignores it) and allows it to affect their judgement, though, and I have come across moderators in the past like that...It never ended well for the site involved.
If possible there should be "conservative" mods. While it might be difficult for them to follow the "progressive" guidelines despite being an autistic site the guidelines need to be interpreted for each individual case, this is where a different perspective could come in handy.
In my time working the most successful companies involved leadership members with very different personalities that respected each other. The companies that failed were individually owned.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.