Should administrators be neutral?

Everyone will have a bent in one direction or another. Perhaps be feeling more or less groutchy.Even a lot of bias shouldn't be a problem as long as individuals are allowed to discuss the issue. If an admin can't support a decision it should be overridden if s/he won't correct the mistake.I have been overridden after reacting too quickly and I don't mind. I'm glad that can happen since it means I don't have to second guess myself and spend forever researching before making a decision. This takes too much time anyway.We are here, compared to some sites I've hung around, very, very slow to outright ban someone. That gives them time to learn and change and/or argue with suspension decisions.The unfortunate fact is that someone unable to follow the guideline about supporting assertions is probably also unable to support accusations of bias or have the faintest grasp of how far off base they are.

I agree with the OP---oops, sorry, thought it said neutered.

Nothing wrong with having "a little fun." But when fun is at the expense of another who cannot answer back, it becomes questionable. Boundaries and a sense of fairplay must be respected by those in control. If there is doubt, then he or she must err on the side of caution. If they do not do that, then there is no point to having moderators. More specifically, there is something wrong when one on the other side of an argument is insulted by those whose responsibility it is to maintain decorum. There is something questionable when a mod uses his or her position to get in the last word, and surely it is wrong when that last word is insulting.

Perhaps some contributors should not be so thin skinned.

Were thin skin the issue, I might agree. But it is not.

It's really easy to say "suck it up wuss" when you're on the side with the numbers.I don't believe that the vast majority of creationist complaining, including most of what Faith has to say, is anything but sour grapes. Nonetheless is behooves our moderators and indeed, all of the rest of us, to proceed with a near-obsession towards fairness. (Note that fairness doesn't mean that lies are given the same credence as truths.)

If you have "the goods", show them. It is not fair to say "I have the evidence but I am not going to show it to you." The problem with this is:1) How do we know you have anything and are not just smarting because you didn't like something an administrator did?2) Maybe you have something but the rest of us would not agree with your assessment of its "fairness". We can't make that judgement unless you show us what you've got.To the statement in question - I would not have read it as "unfair" but can see how CS might. So a bit more sensitivity might be in order, imo.

When a moderator closes a thread with an audible sigh of relief or a sarcastic comment on the tone of the thread he is not functioning as a mod should. Unfortunately the search function is disabled at the moment and I can't remember his exact words anyway, something like, "Well on that cheery note we will put this puppy to bed" and the cheery note was my Bible quote about hell or judgment or something along those lines that ended the thread. This isn't about sensitivities, it's about conspicuous opinionating on the part of mods. While I think some judgments given by mods are done from bias, only this one mod is so overt about it.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-24-2005 02:10 PM