Wilomn said:
Consistency. Spell it out and stick to it.
I assume you mean that every post will be treated equal by all mods here? Meaning that each and every post MUST be read and must be treated the same by myself and the mods?
Well, let's look at some statistics. Over the past week, we got a peak of over 500 new posts per day. Average is probably around 350 per day, so let me round that to 360 posts per day to make the calculations easier.
What do you figure, maybe one minute, conservatively, per post to read, analyze and decide whether it is in violation? Should that mod confer with the other mods if there is any doubt about their opinion being out of line with a general consensus? How long do you suppose it would take one mod to get replies back from the others if there is a question? And how many posts might stack up awaiting replies to make sure he was being "consistent"?
Heck even at just 1 minute per post as an average, the workload JUST to read all of those posts will be roughly 6 hours per day. If I turn this task over to the three moderators and simply consult with them concerning questionable decisions, that leaves each of the three mods with 2 hours of MANDATORY reading to do each and every day to stay "consistent". That does not include the gray area posts and the time necessary to consult with anyone else about their decision. And if one mod just has to spend the day with their personal lives, the other mods taking up the slack need to put in 3 hours each for that day. Hopefully we won't have two mods wasting their time on their personal lives during the same day.
And how am I going to know that each of the mods are pulling their share and putting in that 2 hours every day? Maybe they need to annotate each post so the other mods will know that that particular post has already been analyzed. Plus I will be able to make note of who is doing their job and who isn't and thrash soundly those who are not helping to maintain this "consistency". So let's see, it appears that I need to look over each and every post myself, just to verify this "consistency", so figuring on it only taking me 30 seconds per post, it looks like I have 3 hours to put in each day just to verify the posts have been viewed by at least one of the mods. How much time should I allocate for consulting over those questionable posts each day? With 360 posts average per day, maybe 10 percent of them might be questionable? What do you think, maybe 5 minutes per post to analyze it properly and come to a consensus? Ok, so that is 3 more hours per day I have to put in, plus that time divided among whatever mods had those questionable posts in their queue.

I'm being facetious, of course, and assuming that is what you mean by being "consistent". But certainly you can see that logically and reasonably, the workload being proposed to maintain this perfect world "consistency" is not at all reasonable. Sounds good when you say it, but when you look at the practical details of what that actually means, I don't think any reasonable person can truly expect that here.
Sorry, but no, I am NOT going to make any attempt to suggest that the mods must read every post and must all act like little robots, thinking exactly the same, and acting exactly the same. I know I have my own personality quirks, and when I am in a bad mood I may interpret a post much differently then when I am in a very good mood. I can expect no less from my moderators.
Heck, even with something such as "profanity", what exactly IS that? Do I make up a list of words that are a no-no? Any word that is not on that list is OK for members to use and those on the list automatically get them a fine and suspension? Well what happens is someone posts profanity in Portuguese or something along those lines? Those words weren't on the list were they? Or suppose they just spell those words differently or phonetically? The robot mods must not classify them as profanity because they are not on the list? Should I have to expand that list of profane words to include phrases that mean the same thing? Is calling someone a "horse's ass" worst then them being called "the southernmost orifice of a northbound equine"? All such a thing would do is to make members be more creative trying to figure out exactly how close to the line they can get without putting any skin of their toes over the line. And yes, one mod may laugh at your wittiness and abstain from the warning points, whereas another might not find it all that humorous at all. Non-robotic moderators are like that....
I have stated this numerous times, but I guess I should put it in a text file just so I can cut and paste it on demand when this sort of thing comes up over and over again. I have often stated that rules are enforced here much as a traffic cop will do. Spot checks. The radar gun may not see all of the speeding cars, but if it catches YOU, then that is just your bad luck. Just as the cop will not be concerned that you may point out 3 other motorists speeding by, I am not concerned that someone else may have posted in the same manner but just did not get caught by the "radar gun" of one of my moderators. Simply look at YOUR post. Was it a violation or not? If it was, you just got caught. Next time you might not and it will be someone else. The arm gets tired of holding up that radar gun all day long.
To make another analogy, the IRS cannot possibly audit every tax return filed within the USA. They spot check. You, knowing this, try to fill out your tax form as accurately as possible, or at the very least, in such a way that your lies are believable. If you are audited, and found in violation, then you just lost the toss of the dice. The IRS knows that certainly other people are cheating on their taxes as well, but it is YOU that got caught, and what other people are doing does not excuse what you did. To carry this further, once you get caught, you might just find yourself getting closer scrutiny from the IRS because of the history YOU created of cheating on your taxes. Yes, it may certainly seem that they are being biased against you, but perhaps you have given them reason to look at you closer and harder. YOU gave them reason to suspect that you may do the same thing again in the future, and it is reasonable and prudent for them to anticipate it.
I can't see any reason why applying the same methodology here is unreasonable. If you post ALL of your messages as if that one is the one that a moderator who maybe has caught you in violation in the past will be looking at closely, then what do you THINK you should do? If you post it in a manner that could even possibly be construed as being in violation of the rules, who exactly is at fault here? You have the entirety of the English language at your disposal when you post here. It is your choice of the words you use and how you put them together that results in how you will be interpreted.
Quite frankly, I have gotten complaints before about one mod or another being unfair about assessing warning points to one or more members. When this is brought to my attention, I simply LOOK at the post in question and rate it from my own perspective as to whether or not the warning points may have been justified. Although there may have been a few times when I would have done it differently, the percentage of times that has happened has been so negligible that it is my opinion that there is more of a problem with the person complaining about such action then any wrong doing by any of the mods. Trust me on this: If a mod gets too big for his britches and exceeds his authority by engaging in a personal vendetta against anyone, he will be gone. Abruptly and finally.
On the other hand, no mod is asked to give up their personalities, their opinions, nor their likes and dislikes. They are free to post and act as individuals whenever they please. It is only when acting as a moderator that they must not take advantage of the moderator powers to act upon another member with those powers.
They have all been asked, and expected, to keep the best interests of this site uppermost in their minds no matter what they do here. That is their job. That is their goal. And to be perfectly honest, I think all three of them, Ken Harbart, Jay Owens, and Dennis Thomas, are doing a hell of a job here.
Now will I turn a blind eye to any wrong doings? No, certainly not. This is, after all, my site, and their actions can dramatically affect everyone's participation here, which is exactly contrary to my goals. But I will level with you. If there is any benefit of the doubt, I will give that to my mods. I think that is only fair, since what they are doing is often tough enough as it is, and in many many instances, their actions are the results of a judgment call based on their own perceptions and interpretations. Sometimes I may disagree, and only perhaps because I am in a different mood then they are, but unless I see something that is simply BLATANTLY WRONG (in my opinion), I will not interfere.
Anyway, this went on far longer then I had intended it, but I hope this addressed the issue about "consistency" enough to satisfy at least some people.