Dispute with mod

Is it possible to set it up so that posts have to be approved before appearing in thread? even if it was a rule that every post would be approved but it could take a few hours, it would slow the thread down and cut down on a lot of the off topic stuff

Interesting idea, for helpdesk, feedback, DRP.

Might help with the spam too!

Its a helpdesk thread about inconsistent moderation that contains posts that are being inconsistently moderated.
Posts that draw attention to this are then moderated.

What conclusion are regular posters expected to draw from these observations, as it would seem to just reinforce the point that the OP (and others) raised?

I made a post comparing the treatment of posts #599 & #501 and questioning what was different about them.

I made another post referencing it again and saying that to posters on the receiving end of this treatment, its natural to feel that something funny is going on, you warned me and deleted both my posts saying:

Do not discuss moderation on thread. And we do not discuss actions taken against other posters.

Which to me doesn't align with your description of what this thread could have been.

 It could have been used for constructive discussion around the actions of moderators, explanations why some decisions are made, civil discussion between mods and posters. Moderators are open to this. A number of moderators have engaged on this thread.

I would be interested to know if my own post was reported or if you decided yourself that my example of seemingly inconsistent moderation was me breaching some rules? If users arent allowed to talk about specific moderator actions on a feedback thread about moderator actions, I cant see how it can be a constructive thread?

To ask my question again, the first criteria, why is it so important that the mod be someone active in the forum?

As it currently stands context or culture is not being looked at anyway, so clearly it can be modded without that criteria. Context and culture is not needed to action flagrant rules breaches, so somebody could clear up a lot of those hundreds of reports without having to know any context.

For years we are told it is impossible to get mods, would it not make sense to widen the pool by removing that criteria?

We are told there are dozens of mods happily looking after their own forums, is it the case that absolutely none of them are prepared to action 10/20 of those reported posts once a week and ease the burden on the admins?

Again, they don't have to get down into the septic tank, they can leave the awkward reports and cases for the admins, but Beasty says he has 400+ reports to look through, surely a lot of them are low hanging fruit that could be cleared out without any drama?

As it currently stands context or culture is not being looked at anyway,

And I don't think it was the wider context and culture of the thread that was being asked to be taken into account, only the context of the post, what it was directly responding to, the couple of posts that led to that. Even someone immersed in the culture of CA/IMHO isn't going to know that without going back a few posts and checking it out

Good suggestion, but I think the problem is the difficulty in attracting good mods. There are a couple of decent ones on the forums, but I think boards has been scraping the bottom of the barrel with most of the active mods. I suspect the fear is the loss of mods, even if we don't have fair ones to moderate the forum.

All this talk of bias, inconsistency, one sided reporting, poor moderation is all baloney. If you are attracting, repeated, mod “attention” the only way to avoid this is to change your posting style.

The problem isn’t the site, it’s not the mods, it’s you, and the way you post. Find a way to get your point across without breaking the “site rules” and you will, suddenly, find yourself having very little to do with the mods.