Third Party Moderation for Objectivity in Discussions

[Borek]

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote.

At some point I was even banned because of a wrong button being hit

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, please recognize my earlier point, we are Mentors, not moderators. I have always felt that there is a very important distiction, Mentors guide while moderators watch. As Mentors it is our DUTY to interact. Without that interaction the forums would never have gotten off the ground.

I understand that you are mentors. However you also perform the function of moderators. If I clash with you, not even in your capacity as a mentor, but just a member, over the issue of pot, or if I clash with ZapperZ over the pronunciation of Einstein's name, then later, if there is a moderation issue, how do I know you both can be completely objective? This would never be a possible issue if the moderators weren't also active members.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And so where do the moderators come from? That definitely wouldn't work here-- one of the qualities looked for when a member is asked to become a mentor is that they have been an active, contributing member who has shown to have knowledge in a certain area.

I have no idea where they come from. They are completely anonymous: moderator 1, moderator 2, moderator 3, moderator 4. That forum is an adjunct of a University. It's conceivable they are grad students or interns, but I don't really know.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think to expect the mentors to volunteer their time to moderate, without actively being a part of the community, is unreasonable. Why would they have any interest in moderating a forum that they're not an active part of?

If PF ever starts producing enough income for Greg that he can hire staff, then it might make sense.

Indeed, there has to be some other incentive for them to do it.

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand that you are mentors. However you also perform the function of moderators. If I clash with you, not even in your capacity as a mentor, but just a member, over the issue of pot, or if I clash with ZapperZ over the pronunciation of Einstein's name, then later, if there is a moderation issue, how do I know you both can be completely objective? This would never be a possible issue if the moderators weren't also active members.

You don't! You just have to figure out for yourself if this forum is worth your time and are run with fairness most of the time. In other words, the free-market policy is at work here. You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you feel that the way PF is run is unfair and autocratic. I know many crackpots view PF as the latter. However, and having been on many internet forums for so many years, I would challenge anyone to find another physics forum on the 'net that has so much valuable physics content and discussion, but yet, have so much concern over the members.

Zz.

 

[Evo]

Deleted posts are able to be seen by all mentors. Edits are different: there is no way to see the original post if it has been edited. Thus, if a mentor is editing a post's content, s/he will almost always report the post so that we have a copy in the mentors' forum.

To elaborate on this. It is a rule we follow that before we "intentionally" edit a post, we put a copy of the original post in the mentor's forum first. If a mentor were to try to edit a member's posts without first copying them, it would be easy to discover, the post(s) will show who edited it and the day and time.

 

[George Jones]

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote. If the error is discovered only after cutting out huge chunks of text there is no going back.

On every post, mentors see "EDIT" and "QUOTE" buttons side-by-side, and most mentors have, on occasion, inadvertently clicked on "EDIT" instead of quote "QUOTE".

In a mentors' forum, I once did this thinking that I was posting about my daughter, but the unintentional and unknown "EDIT" gave another mentor a kid that they didn't know that they had.

 

[Gokul43201]

When a 3rd party mentor agrees to give an infraction for another mentor, they just become a go between for the member and that mentor, since at that point infractions have already been approved.

I believe the point Dave is making, and one I agree with, requires that the third party Mentor not be merely a puppet that is administering the desired moderation on behalf of another Mentor, but an independent adjudicator who should not consult the involved Mentor in the decision-making. Else, the role of a third-party mod becomes one purely of appearances.

The exercise of having uninvolved mods make decisions becomes moot if the involved mod is the one steering this decision.

 

[Evo]

I believe the point Dave is making, and one I agree with, requires that the third party Mentor not be merely a puppet that is administering the desired moderation on behalf of another Mentor, but an independent adjudicator who should not consult the involved Mentor in the decision-making. Else, the role of a third-party mod becomes one purely of appearances.

The exercise of having uninvolved mods make decisions becomes moot if the involved mod is the one steering this decision.

Agreed, they would not be dictating the decision, the decision is agreed upon by a group of mentors, but if the member is disputing his discussions with a specific mentor, that mentor does need to respond. The member has a right to have his questions answered by that mentor. Mentors can make mistakes.

If it becomes a case of the member making accusations against the mentor, or if the member states that the mentor made an error, that mentor definitely needs to be able to respond.

 

[DaveC426913]

Agreed, they would not be dictating the decision, the decision is agreed upon by a group of mentors...

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

This is the crux of the thread.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

This is the crux of the thread.

It would depend on the circumstance, we are trying to delay giving infractions until several mentors can chime in, if the mentor is also involved with disputing the member, but that's not always practical, and that is why there is an appeal process. I have seen mentors give an infraction and then report themselves and ask other mentors if they feel it was appropriate.

If it's just a zero point informational "warning", there is no need to ask for involvement by other mentors since it is not an infraction. It's basically just a "heads up".

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

This is the crux of the thread.

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? In other words, is this a common occurrence and that it does require a major overhaul on the way we do business here? Or is this whole thread instead related to something specific that you have problems with?

I read this thread, and if I don't know any better, I would think that PF is utterly dysfunctional and completely lack of any sensible moderation. I hate to think that because you had issues with a particular moderator or a particular thread, that that somehow is ample ground for wholesale overhaul of the monitoring process in this forum. That isn't sensible either!

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.

 

[cristo]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.

Er, no, we will not start airing dirty laundry here and delving into specific cases. The incidents you have been involved in have been reviewed by the mentors and by Greg several times.

 

[Count Iblis]

Er, no, we will not start airing dirty laundry here and delving into specific cases. The incidents you have been involved in have been reviewed by the mentors and by Greg several times.

I know that it has been reviewed behind closed doors. All I'm saying is that I don't object to everything that I have done here to be made visible to everyone. As far I am concerned, there is no dirty laundry to hide.

 

[Count Iblis]

Note also this response by Ivan:

I would add that what you see may not be, and often is not representitive of what actually happens. While you may only see a strike in someone's name, the offending posts have probably been deleted. The staff can see them and review the actions taken, but you can't. By definition you would not normally see the posts that resulted in someone being banned, or infractions being issued. You really have no way to know what happened behind the scenes, so what you think you saw is almost certainly not the entire story.

I'm willing to call his bluf on this issue by making visible all my postings, all my PMs, everything.

 

[Gokul43201]

I know that it has been reviewed behind closed doors. All I'm saying is that I don't object to everything that I have done here to be made visible to everyone. As far I am concerned, there is no dirty laundry to hide.

And what if every member of this forum asks for the same to be done with them? Should the Mentors have to essentially make public thousands of reports, infractions and deleted posts (and then stand trial for every Tom, Dick & Harry's interpretation of events)? That's just flat out infeasible, and can't I imagine any Mentor/Admin feeling silly enough to humor this request (tempted though they might be).

 

[ZapperZ]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

Like I said, you're not the only one. We have had many crackpots who have made similar accusation towards PF that's even worse - all the way to us being responsible for preventing the progress in science!

And since we ARE talking about science, you will understand that I would consider your view as only ONE data point and doesn't not represent the majority and the common running of this forum. In fact, the fact that you came back from a ban is also highly unusual and not the common situation that most of the members on here have faced. So you will understand that your "data point" is quite skewed off the normal distribution. This, in no way, reflects a systemic problem. It reflects YOUR problem with the forum.

Besides, if you think that poorly of how this forum is run, I don't understand why you keep coming back.

Zz.

 

[apeiron]

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? .

My feeling is that the problem is not systematic in that most moderations are fair. But I have definitely experienced an occasion of outright unfairness and the system to fix that hasn't worked so far.

From a user perspective, the moderation is also not a transparent process. We are not privy to any background discussions. So it is very easy to percieve decisions as unfair, hasty or personal.

So it is a system that works for the most part, but may not own up to its occasional mistakes, and has a systemic transparency problem.

Doing as Dave suggests would ease the transparency issue and would also have prevented a situation where I was infracted 3 points by a moderator who admitted he was against "leftist ideologies" and misunderstood the case I was making.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You don't!

Honest answer, and one which I figured out and accepted long ago. Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Quite a few mentors have been here for years and it became clear to me years ago that, because they have also to moderate they suffer something like "battle fatigue": Integral once posted an explanation of reduced tolerance for crackpots because they constitute a "resource sink", meaning, simply, they wear the mentors out having to chase them around and correct them. Non-participating moderators would not be at risk of carrying that over into remarks as members.

 

[ZapperZ]

My feeling is that the problem is not systematic in that most moderations are fair. But I have definitely experienced an occasion of outright unfairness and the system to fix that hasn't worked so far.

From a user perspective, the moderation is also not a transparent process. We are not privy to any background discussions. So it is very easy to percieve decisions as unfair, hasty or personal.

So it is a system that works for the most part, but may not own up to its occasional mistakes, and has a systemic transparency problem.

This, I am not surprised. In fact, I would be VERY surprised if such a thing doesn't happen. It is why any infraction, etc. that are sent out are seen by all the Mentors. It means that on several occasions, such actions are debated, often quite spirited, on the fairness of such actions. However, we all have our lives to lead and in many cases, things things can slip through. Not only that, in many of these actions, especially when it originates out of the Philosophy/Politics forums where a lot of things borders on matters of opinion, the decision is not clear cut. You may think something isn't fair, but another member may think it is. So already there can easily be 2 different stories on the same thing.

Again, I'm not making the case for this being the PERFECT means of moderating. I'm saying that given what we have, and given how PF has evolved into what it is now, I don't this as being a systemic problem. Are they exceptions? Sure there is. There are "exceptions" to the members here too.

Doing as Dave suggests would ease the transparency issue and would also have prevented a situation where I was infracted 3 points by a moderator who admitted he was against "leftist ideologies" and misunderstood the case I was making.

Again, using a specific case as the "proof" doesn't quite makes sense to me. I'd rather that these cases be solved and handled on the individual basis. You have other mentors that you can contact, and you also have the Admins to bring your complaint further up. And I also presume that this again, as I said earlier, emanated out of the Politics/Philosophy forums, which also creates WAY too many problems that is disproportionate to its size and relevance to PF. Using what goes on there to reflect on the bigger part of this forum is not exactly a very accurate, nor "scientific" methodology.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

And what if every member of this forum asks for the same to be done with them? Should the Mentors have to essentially make public thousands of reports, infractions and deleted posts (and then stand trial for every Tom, Dick & Harry's interpretation of events)? That's just flat out infeasible, and can't I imagine any Mentor/Admin feeling silly enough to humor this request.

I agree with you that this is not a basis for a new moderation system. All I want to do is act as a test subject. Not for the purpose of appealing any infractions I've got in the past, rather for others to see how the system really is working without the "you don't know what is going on behind the scenes" problem. If you study one case in all details then you can see far better what is going wrong and what is working well.

My opinion (but I think everyone should be able to judge for themselves based on all the facts) is that, particularly with involved moderators in a discussion, things can go wrong because we don't always automatically assume good faith. The problem is not due to "evil moderators" abusing their power.

What can happen in closed door discussions is that an initial judgement about the motives of a poster can stick and become more and more exaggerated. This is because the group will discuss based on previous cases when a similar perception of bad intentions may have occured. It is a bit like how Saddam's WMD threat became more and more urgent during discussions between Bush and Blair.

I think one can address this problem (assuming my judgement about this is correct), by having a better review system that includes the member defending him/herself before an infraction is issued and a review of all postings by a member.

 

[Gokul43201]

Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Is this other forum also an academic/education forum? Just curious.

What you mention (if applied to PF) would be the equivalent of running a school in which teachers were completely shielded from any disciplinary role. Can't say I'm aware of any place that such a system has been implemented.

 

[ZapperZ]

Honest answer, and one which I figured out and accepted long ago. Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Quite a few mentors have been here for years and it became clear to me years ago that, because they have also to moderate they suffer something like "battle fatigue": Integral once posted an explanation of reduced tolerance for crackpots because they constitute a "resource sink", meaning, simply, they wear the mentors out having to chase them around and correct them. Non-participating moderators would not be at risk of carrying that over into remarks as members.

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Zz.

 

[DanP]

I think this forum is decently moderated. Yeah, I personally despise any form of moderation but sometimes evil is necessary. Besides, it;s just internet any no one should care too much even if not all moderation decision are perfect. It's the playgournd of it's owner and his moderation gang and as such, they can do anything they want.

It aint bad.

 

[russ_watters]

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator.

The thread has moved fast so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but often times, moderators do request to have another staff member take the action to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or just to make sure the user knows that other moderators are involved (ie, in the case of multiple infractions for a single person: sometimes we have multiple moderators issue the infractions).

The difficulty with this is that we do not have a full-time/round the clock moderation staff (though having moderators on several continents does help). So that can be impractical, particularly in the case of a fast-moving thread where immediate action may be required.

Either way, the fact that every moderation decision is automatically brought up for discussion via the opening of a thread (the board software does this) ensures that bias as the reason for moderation would be picked-up. And trust me on this: moderators are not shy about challenging the decisions of others if they think there is an issue. And typically, moderators are also cognizant of where an issue might exist and go further out of their way to request additional opinions on the actions.

How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

The idea that a Moderator is left to decide for himself if there's a conflict of interest is fundamentally flawed. It contradicts what has been claimed several times in this thread - that multiple people are involved in the decisions.

I'm really not sure how you're misunderstanding this, Dave. What people have said about the system has been an accurate description of what goes on. I don't think you're properly connecting the dots.

The logic of ethics dictates that a conflict of interest exists when someone moderates on a discussion they are participating in. A moderator may, on their own, choose to take some action to avoid the conflict of interest, but if they don't it doesn't make much of a difference because there are automatic controls in place to counteract the issue.

Remember: we also moderate/judge each other (and Greg and chroot, us). I'm sure every moderator has been accused of taking action based on vindictive bias. If the senior staff ever agreed that it was a significant problem, I'm sure action would be taken to remove that moderartor to avoid damaging the forum - and I don't think such action ever has been taken. So this isn't something that really requires a convoluted procedure to be in place, where (for example), the physics moderator is the engineering mentor and vice versa. That would be too cumbersome to be worthwhile - it would double the number of threads a mentor has to read in order to do their job!

 

[Count Iblis]

ZapperZ, my data point point is a vector in a high dimensional space, so it is misleading to compare that to a single data point. It contains many bites of information. All this can be disclosed, I don't object to that on any privacy grounds.

Also, about the issue of leaving PF, I have to say that I was about to leave PF after my last ban a few weeks ago. I actually wrote a posting here on feedback forum in which I told that I was leaving and explained what i.m.o. was going wrong. That posting was removed, presumably because it contained too many details. The next day I visited PF again just to see if something had been done regarding some specific criticisms. I saw nothing and I simply could not resist going back the Homework Help forums to fix the specific example of the problem myself.

So, this explains why I have not left PF. It is simply why I came here in the first place: This is a place where you can discuss physics and math. If you mostly care about that, you can swallow unfair infractions.

 

[russ_watters]

Members always have the opportunity to question an infraction. The guidelines state that the member should first contact the mentor that gave the warning if they feel that it wasn't warranted. If after speaking with the mentor they still wish to appeal, they may then contact another mentor, and if needed, Greg.

Also worth noting: if a user questions a moderator's decision via pm to that moderator, ethics requires that moderator to seek additional opinions, which typically includes copying the PM to the moderator's forum. So be polite when complaining about a moderator's decision! Flaming a moderator over an infraction doesn't gain a user much sympathy with the other moderators!

 

[russ_watters]

Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator.

Whether or not that is true of other forums on the internet (I've never seen it be true in any forum I've ever been to), that just plain isn't the purpose of moderators in this forum.

There is one notable exception: Greg. His "disinterest" does give him a great trump-card and we appreciate it, but the other moderators are not intended to be "disinterested".

 

[Gokul43201]

I agree with you that this is not a basis for a new moderation system. All I want to do is act as a test subject. Not for the purpose of appealing any infractions I've got in the past, rather for others to see how the system really is working without the "you don't know what is going on behind the scenes" problem. If you study one case in all details then you can see far better what is going wrong and what is working well.

I disagree. Even if we accept the premise that making one exception to a "no public discussion of individual moderation acts policy" will not open the floodgates to every distressed soul demanding a public exhibition, I don't see this as helping. For one reason, because it's just one data point (even in some large-n-dimensional space) among thousands. What if going through this elaborate process convinces everyone that the moderation was just and carefully meted out? Should everyone then extrapolate that every single action by the Mentors is squeaky clean? Or should we then find another volunteer?

I can't speak for the staff, but this not something I want to see happen (and I don't think I've personally dealt with any moderation concerning you). And that's not to say that I think the system can not use improvement - I strongly believe it needs improvement.

 

[DanP]

Flaming a moderator over an infraction doesn't gain a user much sympathy with the other moderators!

Sure, but it's the most funny thing you can do. And certainly much more valuable then gathering sympathy.

 

[russ_watters]

To elaborate on this. It is a rule we follow that before we "intentionally" edit a post, we put a copy of the original post in the mentor's forum first. If a mentor were to try to edit a member's posts without first copying them, it would be easy to discover, the post(s) will show who edited it and the day and time.

For everyone's info, there are two types of deletions, "soft" and "hard". AFAIK, a "hard" deletion records the action -- but the post is gone forever. I used to be in the practice of "hard" deleting the 10x a day Nike Air and iPhone spam we got, plus the once a day 9/11, 2012, and "Die Athiests!" crackpot spam, but I was criticized for deleting one that others didn't agree was as off-the-wall as I thought it was. So now I "soft" delete everything I delete.

 

[Gokul43201]

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

There is one faulty assumption here: that modB and modC know as much as modA.

This is only theoretically possible (or perhaps feasible, give man-hour constraints) in relatively short threads. In a several page long thread, the mod that is the active participant in the thread is perhaps the only one that has a good idea of who started what minor bit of trouble where which say, blew up into a bigger conflagration owing to the unwelcome retorts of which others, and so on. Requiring two or more mods to be up to date on all troublesome threads, especially within the Lounge, is an unreasonable demand on Mentors' time. It is similarly, a terribly inefficient use of administrative power to wait for second and third opinions for obvious offenses (spam, outright crackpottery, blatantly clear violations of rules, minor things requiring only 0-point warnings, etc.).

The less demanding, but perhaps equally reasonable requirement that multiple (disinterested) mods get involved in the event of an appeal, has been found to be manageable and is, I believe, the SOP.

Nevertheless, as has been repeated here several times, participating Mentors do often request additional input from neutrals even before the infraction stage (and long before any possible appeal).

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Zz.

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance. I'll freely acknowledge being a moderator who is quick to act against people I perceive to be crackpots. "Battle fatigue" is as good a description as any...

...but there is a flip-side that is a clear positive: having seen how crackpots present themselves and evolve, most moderators gain some skill in identifying crackpots before they "come out". It's practically a game in the moderator's forum sometimes, predicting when someone's going to take that final step over the edge. Anyway, the positive of that is clear: shutting down crackpots before they drag-down a conversation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance. I'll freely acknowledge being a moderator who is quick to act against people I perceive to be crackpots. "Battle fatigue" is as good a description as any...

Battle fatigue can be a big problem. As have we all, I have been critical of other moderators at times. I have also jumped to the wrong conclusion when judging a discussion. Sometimes we miss things. Sometimes we're tired. Sometimes we are stuggling with personal issues. There have been times that I have forced myself to stay offline because I knew I was in a very bad mood. But in the end, we are all trying to do what is best for the forum. One of the first things that new mentors have mentioned after their first few days, is that PF takes a lot more work than they ever knew. We have a lot of dedicated people who have donated countless hours to making PF the best that it can be. However, this comes with a personal price for everyone.

One big problem is that it takes far less time to post nonsense than it does to properly moderate the discussion. For example, someone could jump into a global warming discussion by blazing the page with links that can take many hours to sort through. Sometimes, the poster merely copied links from some GW [pro or con] site, so it took very little effort for the crackpot, but the moderator has a full time job ahead of them. It is a common technique used by crackpots that is intended to overwhelm the opposition with information. While the general membership can just give up and ignore the thread, the staff still has to deal with it.

...but there is a flip-side that is a clear positive: having seen how crackpots present themselves and evolve, most moderators gain some skill in identifying crackpots before they "come out". It's practically a game in the moderator's forum sometimes, predicting when someone's going to take that final step over the edge. Anyway, the positive of that is clear: shutting down crackpots before they drag-down a conversation.

So we learn to recognize posture. We know the symptoms of a problem member. We know the patterns. We know the techniques that crackpots use. We have learned to spot problem members long before they have violated any rule. As you said, we even joke sometimes about whether a new member is going to last a day, or a week. While we do make mistakes and misjudge members at time, I would also bet that our error rate is very, very low. The success of PF is testimony to this perception. PF has grown to be more than we even dared to hope, in the beginning.

I can say that my personal goal is to always to ensure that the most accurate information available is presented as clearly as possible; regardless of the conclusions or content. However, this doesn't always make members happy. If they have a strong bias wrt to a particular topic and they don't get their way, you can be sure that the first accusation against me, will be bias. That is the first excuse used to defend just about every crackpot argument, when moderated.

It is a thankless job peppered with hate mail, that we do for free.

Personally, I think this thread is much ado about nothing. We have checks and balances in place. We are always striving to make PF better than it is today. But it is not reasonable to start selecting moderators according to any potential bias. Unless we are talking about something one can read as a definitive statement in a textbook, every subject discussed here is open to bias on the part of every moderator. Part of our job is to recognize the difference between our personal bias, and the facts. This applies to all discussions. That's why we are very careful in selecting new staff members. The selection of new staff is based largely on their knowledge, performance, and objectivity. Nominees names may float for years before they are finally offered a mentorship.