Robin - YOU asked for my opinion, and I gave it. Sorry it was not what you wanted, but that is the way with life sometimes.
First off, as best I can recall, I did not ask members here about any of the moderators I chose for this site prior to my asking them aboard to help me out. I believe my procedure has been to ask the current group of moderators their opinion of anyone I am considering adding on as a moderator, and I feel that is just and fair. The decision to add a moderator is not going to be based on a popularity vote, just as any decision to remove a moderator every will be here. This will be the result of a consensus decision of the other moderators, but with the final decision laying within my hands alone. And as I have said at least once in my life, I do not expect everyone to agree with all of my decisions, but they are mine to make here, nonetheless.
By nature, moderators just are not going to be popular with everyone. Particularly on a site like this where conversations can get quite heated and it is a given that a moderator will need to step in once in a while to try to tone down things. We are getting roughly 300 to 500 new posts every day here. For anyone to expect us to read each and every post and then decide if they all need to have warning points is ludicrous. Often the ONLY post we may read in a thread is the one someone sent us a notice about. None before, and none afterwards. That is just the way it is.
I certainly am not going to read EVERYTHING, and I certainly will not demand of moderators donating their time here, for free, to do that either. If that is what you need out of a site, then this site is not for you. If you need a site where you can be hip deep in moderators, so they can keep you and everyone else exactly in line, then go find one. This is not it.
So yes, you are going to see occasions where there is the appearance of bias simply because no one here is going to read everything, and will spot check posts and threads as time and effort allows, and deal with things as best we can. Of course, nearly everyone who gets points is going to feel they are unjustified and unfairly biased against them. You all have NO idea how many emails and PMs I get from people myself when I warn them about one infraction or another. The number of people claiming I am unfair and unjust, is staggering.
The simple answer is to proofread your messages before you press that SUBMIT REPLY button. If you have any doubts about it being inappropriate and maybe giving you warning points, then edit it BEFORE you send it. THAT is the purpose of the warning point system. To try to keep messages posted here within guidelines that
I feel are reasonable expectations for people posting on a publicly viewable forum.
I have stated before that moderators should not act in both a moderator's capacity and a post contributor within the same thread. After giving this considerable thought and especially after analyzing that "KC mites" thread, this is not a feasible thing to ask of my moderators. In that thread, Jay Owens was actually dragged into the thread by emails passed back and forth between himself and Mickey Hinkle. So Mickey MADE him personally involved in that thread and also at the same time, involved him as a moderator. For me to MAKE a moderator choose one hat or another, is patently unfair and quite overbearing of me to do. So I hereby rescind that guideline and replace it with a request that all moderators use their best judgment in situations like this. YOU all need to realize that moderators are PEOPLE and have emotions just like you do. To expect them to be robots is unfair and unreasonable.
I spend a lot of time on this site, probably more time then I should, so I think I will become well aware of a situation where any moderator is abusing their role here. I do welcome people to contact me about such things, or post in a thread like this, as long as it is not in itself abusive of a moderator in the process. But I will be perfectly frank here. I am not going to give a whole lot of weight for consideration to people who my inspection determines HAVE been warranted getting those points. I see enough of these sorts of "sour grape"-a-grams and I am not willing to allow someone to engage in a free for all moderator bashing thread in public which has no apparent goal but to simply bash one of the moderators. Nor am I going to be impressed by a "ground swell" of a half dozen people out of 14,000 who think they speak for the majority on an issue.
If you think you have been biased against, simply report the post, which sends a link to me, or send me a PM or email and I will look at it. If I do not agree with the moderator's assessment of warning points, I will remove them and keep track of the number of times this happens. If I
do believe the warning points ARE warranted, I will keep track of that as well, and keep that in mind the next time I am contacted by that person about such an issue. Enough of these kinds of contacts, and I will do something about someone, no matter who, to end it.
So, if you all want to bash ME instead, for my decisions, then go right ahead. I believe I have stated my position sufficiently by now. Just don't bash me in such a manner that you will get warning points for it.
Because I AM biased concerning issues that relate to me and my site. Which is as it should be.
