Goodness me !

What does it mean to be a moderator. What are this site's policies on moderation? Until that is understood I don't think it's fair to allow nominations for moderators.

My own veiw (which may be completely dissimilar to Dunk's for all I know) is that moderators should be fair, impartial, even-handed, and not overly corrective or power-hungry. I am a big advocate of free speech as long as it doesn't infringe on peoples rights, demean them by race/religion/gender/sexual preference etc., or include libel or slander. I don't think heated conversations or debates need to be excessively moderated unless there is an element of undue malice, personal threat, or discrimination. Excessive censorship is therefore not a good thing.

A moderator should have a good disposition but not necessarily be an automaton or a fence-rider. Sometimes moderators exacerbate problems by trying to be too middle-of-the-road or wishy-washy. But I don't think you can choose moderators who are excessively negative and controversial either. I just witnessed the demise of what was a very rigorous Liverpool MB - myself and E(SSO) came over from that site. Poor moderation was one of the factors behind its demise.

These comments aren't an attempt to gain nomination for the position - I know I would never be considered. But some of the people being nominated will spell trouble if they are given the role. I am genuinely interested in Kop Talk's stance on the issue of moderation and censorship. I have witnessed instances where one person got banned in a trade of insults between two posters, which I think was the wrong action to take. I have also noted a couple of decent posters not come back after receiving a short ban. There have also been instances where people have survived despite committing worse verbal offenses of those that were banned. I think I have some good recommendations for moderators but it all depends on Kop Talk's policy.

Do you not think you are taking this a bit too seriously?????