I think the problem is the mods, they seem to have different rules depending on how well they get on with the poster.
I do agree that moderating standards are inconsistent (somewhat understandably at times) but its unfair to impute bias based on the 'relationship' of a poster with a moderator. I am not saying this cant happen but its not easy for the posters to make a judgement call on this. If it is too blatant, it can be brought to the notice of senior people at CW (right at the very top if you wish) and you can be sure that it will receive due consideration.
It can't be anyone's case that the owners of CW (or even the senior members for that matter) wish anything but the highest standards at CW be it in posting, moderating or administration.
But when making a complaint, the members raising the issue need to remember that a complaint raised in a moderate and considered language sounds much better than one where the member raves and rants which gives the whole issue an emotional slant that always gives the impression of being lower on the objectivity scales.
The fact that this thread is receiving so much attention from all concerned is something that should convince members about the sincerity of the management to do the right thing but we cant all decide that the right is just what each of us thinks individually. There are shades of grey in all matters. Lets discuss this matter and discuss it threadbare in the spirit in which it has been done , mostly, so far and we will surely emerge the better for it.
Coming to moderation, it is true that some times moderators can be harsh. One does come across such instances once in a while. I did too a couple of days ago but I have no reason to believe that the moderator concerned was doing anything but his best of the job as he understood it. I should have pointed it out, offline, to someone, say James, so that the moderator could be counseled personally which is often the best way to do it.
I think it may not be a bad idea for there to be a group in CW which could have some senior moderators on it as well as some non-moderating members that the management may considered suitable for doing an objective assessment. This group could discuss problematic cases on a periodic basis offline and then maybe send a private message to the poster/s concerned asking them to moderate their language, style, whatever. They could then assess the issue again after a gap and if it is observed that the matter hasn't been addressed, stricter action could be taken.
I do not know how exactly things are done today. It is possible that it is on similar lines but I think having some non-moderator members involved might not be a bad idea.
I don't think it's that cool saying something like that.
You can't have a system where someone who commits a first offence after years of unblemished behaviour receives the same penalty as a recidivist .............. can you?
