Moderator rotation

[flamesong]

Whilst the new moderation Code of Practice is being finalised, I would like to suggest that moderation team should be rotated and that, say, once a month the longest serving moderator be retired for a minimum agreed period and a new moderator be blessed. Perhaps there could be a nomination and voting process which will allow the forum to decide who the successor will be. I think the word 'forum' is the key here.

One reason for this is that there seems to be regular antagonism between certain forum members and certain moderators and whilst moderators are generally seen as fair and balanced it is obvious that some forum members get away with far worse than others.

There is no pretence that the forum is a democracy but it would, no doubt, help to germinate a healthy culture of collectivism if we can all participate.

So, another reason is that currently there does not seem to be any accountability of the moderation team and no transparency about their positions. It kind of reminds me of when I went to the inaugaural meeting of the Respect Party. There were half a dozen people sitting at the top table and when there was a vote they were the only ones who were elected.

If things stay like this the moderation team will start to look like the permanent members of the UN Security Council - or worse still, the Politburo.

This should not be seen as a criticism of any moderator or moderation - simply that without some sense of evolution - the forum's management looks stagnant.

[rodin]

I do not believe in democracy. I don't see why we guests should be given the right to elect moderators. Whoever pays the server calls the tune. We can stay or not. JMHO. See the post on Socialism in the nutters section to see why I abhor responsibility being divorced from action.