I notice CT is a co-moderator.  You might want to get his take, too? 

Personally, Goose, you, and I have had disagreements and differing opinions on some things, but as far as I know none of my posts, nor your resonses directed toward me, have ever been censored.

I check on the abuse reports and skim new posts daily.  To date, nothing's been reported and no one has PM'ed me.

I don't like the idea of simply deleting posts.  A fair warning should suffice.  If that doesn't help, then I'd reconsider.

The definiton of a 'personal attack' can be very broad and somewhat murky.  I don't feel this is something that could be strictly defined.  Unless it's obvious, things should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 

Interfering in the flow of a thread is something I would only do after careful consideration.

Keep in mind, I'm just another moderator.  I believe problems with a moderator would be best addressed to one of the administrators; El Presidente or Tarnation.

Please let me know if there are things I need to monitor more closely, I'm kinda new at this moderating thing.

Thanks everyone! 

IMO it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some rules, or at least some guidlines for moderation.

#1,2, 4, and 5 no problem. Done. That is what I will do.,


"At least" Two moderators required to delete a post?
Do you think we are Google with a bunch of guys in an office together monitoring the board?


Hey, maybe each moderator could have a key,,,,,,
(light hearted moment to make a serious point time). 





That's a nonstarter. Completely impractical..
Let's keep in mind that we aren't launching nuclear missles here, just keeping order on a discussion board. And I don't see that it should require an act of Congress to overcome someone's imagined "right" to abuse another poster.

The moderator is there to facilitate discussion, keep threads on track, and keep the tone civil. If he needs to edit or remove a post, then he should do so. Hopefully, that will be an unusual event. But, he must do what is necessary.
That's what moderators do. 

By the time one tracks down a second moderator, conducts a vote etc, hours may pass and the damage is already done. People are just going to have to trust the moderators to do their job, and if they feel like they were unfairly treated, they have the administrators to appeal to. It worked this time, didn't it? Brady raised some concerns and a (mostly) civil discussion about the matter ensued. (Notwithstanding the use of a poo emoticon).

I understand that there is a difference in perspective, and a tug of war between protecting the individual, and protecting the forum. But, there are very few internet rookies here. And while the man never saw the old exchange , we all have seen how a few individuals can turn an unmoderated forum into a mess. This forum will be moderated.

Posters can help by adhering to the guidlines for etiquette, keeping their posts on topic, avoiding name calling or derogatory remarks, and not attacking people.

The answer is NOT in making it so difficult to delete a post that no one will ever confront a problem poster.

Interesting, since this has come to a head, I've noticed a real raising of the bar in focus, civil tone and thoughfulness of posts in the Politics, and News area. And, as if by magic, suddenly there's no need to delete anything, even though there is content that "Goose doesn't agree with". 
Imagine that. 



Now, I am asking for a pledge from commonsense and the man to follow the rules of eitiquette posted in another thread in this area.