I thought I would bring this up in feedback, it seems to be feedback material afterall.

It seems fairly evident that there are some boards (in the Members run) section that have no moderator present anymore. Whilst a mod is named on the boards, in some cases the named mod has not been online for more than a year.

We have already seen some of these boards previously used for trouble making.

I thought to put this thread up, before any more extreme trouble making was stirred up again.

It seems to me that there are two simple solutions (well, three if un-moderated boards are to become the dumping grounds I suppose).

Firstly: The obvious one - if the moderator is no longer interested either lock the board and save it for posterity or, delete the board all together.

Second: Go through the boards that do not appear to have a mod and see is someone will mod them....

Not too hard I would think.

Given there might not be an abundance of members who would step forward to mod - nuking might be the best option. Although I am pretty sure I have seen both Red and Grap indicate they would be mods - I am not sure if they would prefer global or a members board.

Or, perhaps leaving things as they are might be the easiest option that takes the least amount of effort. For now at any rate.

Its the net, I think only spam should be removed.

The constant calls for banning posters stems from a select few 'special' posters driven by their agendas (schilling biographies, promoting the parties of which they work or
are members, defending the unions they make their livings from etc). The administrators should only allow posters driven by the simple desire to voice an opinion. You can tell the 'special' posters; they are online for about 16 hours a day, they contribute to EVERY topic, they're largely progressives and they never get banned regardless of how much they abuse and troll.

I think PA could do with an Admin to mod that place for a while? You would be a great candidate, Phem.

Well, PA needs someone to set it to rights!

I was not talking you go there and fight an election, I was meaning more an appoitment by FD to put you in charge there and clean the cesspit up.

The process of elections there has not given a good outcome. Time for a change.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 15^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:


To be perfectly honest, PA needing to be set to rights is subjective at best, some after all love it the way it is apparently. Now, you and I might both agree that moderation could be done differently (whether better or worse again would be subjective after all), but that would be our opinion.

As to FD simply appointing me per se. Whilst that would clearly be his choice, if I were to try and walk a  mile in his shoes, I have to say honestly I would not make that call... You have fought with members there, I get that, I have been effectively abused by some of the membership there, that is also not lost on me, however, we are two individual posters and that is all. I think FD would shoot himself in the foot simply making what, at best, would be an arbitrary call - further, FD has his own relationship with these posters, I have no insight into whether that is good, bad or indifferent, BUT, making the change you suggest would very likely destroy it.

I don't disagree with the system for elections currently being very flawed, but, it seems evident, that is not up to you, me or anyone other than FD and his PA members.

So, by all means speak your peace and bring your idea to FDs attention, but, respectfully I would suggest, don't be too disappointed if he simply refuses to even consider the idea - I reckon I can fully understand why that might be and it's nothing to do with you, me or any personality specifically.

hehehehehe PA could be considered an unmoderated board in many ways. 

Just my little joke Phem.

Thanks, but I am not registered at ALL at PA.

Pretty sure I would be considered too "dangerous" by decision makers at PA and apart from that, I simply chose not to join.

Thanks again though.