The Question and Answer Board

[wEaReLeGiOn]

Lurker from Mars- I find that more often


than not, if a moderator, (as most seem to be) are 'pro' company (IRP or not), then 'pro' poster's comments/posts are given to the least stringent interpretation of the TOU, while the 'con' poster is immediately and forthwith dealt a strict interpretation of TOU. The opposite could be said if the moderator was considered 'con' although that scenario I suspect, isn't prevalent.

I find this to be endemic, and a good reason for mandatory moderator rotation, preferably by someone who's not a stock holder in the company. A new moderator could be assigned every 30 days or so, taken from a random sampling pool of willing I-Hub users. I suspect I-hub would have no shortage of volunteers. This policy may only need to be used for boards with a certain threshold of posts per day, or it could be implemented systemically.

This would do away with most of the 'manipulation' noise, and I also suggest that Matt gives me back my 15 posts per diem, after having been denied them for nearly a year, for such brilliant foresight as stated above :)




I find the TOS is needed more often in those cases as the paid rarely remove an attack on a "basher" but rather leave it until admin takes it off..