Although it is rather an interesting idea. We don't have to be unaware of who the admin is, but it doesn't need to be brought up in general discussion. That way, if someone or something new starts kicking off, that admin can step in and fix the problem witout being singled out as a target. Maybe a little more like the DIA than the DIS. A tiny group wholly dedicated to the PPC's protection, rather than a group dedicated to bullying and silencing those whom they didn't want around.

And I'm babbling. I'll shush now.

As long as being a PG isn't synonymous with having Board powers, or vice-versa, I don't see a problem. I do imagine, though, that anyone given Board power will already be a PG, and I have no problem with that.

Frankly, I think we'll only need one (or two, in case of emergency) administrators, and indeed, we don't need moderators. So I'm all for giving a few people the technical power and just letting it go.

There are two ways of looking at moderators:

One, and it's the way most moderators seem to see themselves, as authorities -- people with the power and authority to keep the peons in line.

The other (which I think is the right way to look at it) is as garbage collectors, hired to clean up spambot droppings and similar detritus.

The trick is, first, to appoint people with the garbageman mindset, and second, to make sure they don't drift towards the dictator mindset.

The problem is, of course, that there's no 100% reliable way to go about it. Or if there is, in 14 years of moderating everything from a BBS to numerous Web forums, I haven't met anyone who's figured it out. The best solution seems to be having a stable, sane, steady, and well-trusted person in charge -- Techno-Dann, in our case -- and having that person act as "benevolent dictator", able to appoint mods as needed to take care of shoveling up bot droppings if and when needed.

Moderating users' posts can be a slippery slope, because there's always the matter of lines and where you draw them. The "what is a flame?" poll in my FFN profile is still live, and it's interesting seeing the spread of the responses. There are people who draw the line maybe a little harsher than I do, and people who think all but the mildest and most apologetic concrit is a "flame", and many somewhere in between. The same thing happens on forums: What exactly constitutes a "personal attack"? How far is it to "off topic"? What exactly is "unfriendly" and is it different for different people? When you have people making judgment calls about that, you get drama.

My rules as moderator:

1. Never mod a discussion you're participating in. At the very least there is a perception of a conflict of interest; at the worst, you'll turn into a modzi.

2. Use the least-destructive moderation possible: For instance, move a post rather than editing it; edit it rather than delete it.

3. If you edit or delete a post, put a copy of the original on the mods' board for review.

Obviously 2 and 3 require a forum that has editing and moving capabilities, and somewhere to put the mods' board. The basic principles, though, remain the same.

Resentment and distrust of the mods is more destructive to an online community than any amount of off-topic posting, flaming, and board drama. 99% of the time, that distrust is self-inflicted, as the mods get above themselves (much like politicians) and see themselves as your masters, not our servants.

So, I propose that the title of anyone given moderation powers on this board be "Bot Manure Shoveler" and they be issued a patch depicting a shovel and a wheelbarrow.

Moderators, like fire, make good servants but poor masters.

...in that case, do we leave admin powers with you and leave them as a 'break glass in case of emergency' type thing?

I was going to say that someone Internet-savvy is my first pick, but you said it all for me. {= )

~Neshomeh