Jon Pretty

this is not good enough. a moderator MUST be perfect. if a mod has moral failings that preclude them from seeing a situation objectively, they should abdicate from arbitrating it. this power is not someone's toy to make their life easier. it's purely a duty, and this mod failed.

I just don't think it's possible for moderators, who are usually unpaid for their work, to have enough time to do their jobs with the sort of perfection we would like. It's difficult. That's not to say they shouldn't be striving for more objective decisions all the time.

And I'm not trying to justify any bad decisions. I'm looking at this from the perspective that the economics of maintaining a forum are such that they won't ever have the same judicial standards and due process that we'd like. We can desire it, but shouldn't pretend it exists.

yeah no there's a dozen people for every seat who would jump at the chance. You're making this out like it's some undesirable job that no one wants to do. That just isn't true.

I think the job can't be handed to just anyone, though. There needs to be sufficient trust in the moderator for them to have the authority to do the job, and that can only be established over time. It's also easier to give someone the job of moderator than to take it away.

How would you know, have you recruited for moderators in enough capacity to handle situations like the above in competent manner? Where are the calls for applications? Where is your documented moderator process? It's easy to sit in an armchair and repeat "too hard, can't be done"

it's especially easy to blame nebulous difficulties and human failings when it's a convenient excuse for the continued dysfunction of an organisation which is given considerable power in the community. Which I am saying you are doing right now, just to be clear.

Which organisation are you talking about here? I think the only organisation involved was Reddit...