Lordpendragon said:
I can't help wondering why there is no form of member approval system for the moderators. I am not even sure who you all are.
Would the Moderators not feel more legitimate if they had some form of approval from their peers?
Someone asked, what was the prupose of this thread. It is a fair question and deserves an honest answer. May I also point out that the question was actually to the Mods about their views of their own legitimacy without a member mandate. I appreciate that the site is owned, I was just asking whether an alternative method might be considered given the very good explanation above as to the value of a site from it's members. As the Glazers are finding out, there is more to a club than owning the shares, well in the UK anyway.
First, a significant number of the Mods are barely visible. As was pointed out by someone else, this can lead to an impression of remoteness and therefore questions about the relevance of their views on current happenings.
Secondly, I appreciate that Naughty likes lists, but her posting of her favourites does not help those who have felt that they sense an element of favouritism and hence inconsistency in Mod actions, whether they are right or wrong.
Finally, I personally found the immodearte language used to argue with a member by Mods a while back unjustified. If you can't moderate your own language, you shouldn't be judging other people IMO.
I appreciate that I do not see everything that goes on, in truth I am glad that I don't.
I very much enjoy the lively debate and great humour here, and remarkably, you may think, I consider the Mods to be excellent and one quite outstanding. It was just a question about having a member mandate given the ongoing rumblings.