You raise several important questions, CC. Thanks for bringing them up as you did. This is something I've thought about a lot, too, and I think there may be room for improvement if we work on this idea some more.
ChristianCenturion said:
That was my common, administrative reasoning.
However, my foundational reasoning would be that it is contradictory to Christian teaching in authority, correction, and resolving issues. Citing scripture has not proven effective in focusing the minds of those that want that feature, so I will leave that simply referenced.
OK, I'll cite what I think is the most relevant scripture:
[bible]matthew 18:15-20[/bible]
This is the only instance I can think of in the gospels where Jesus himself gives a step-by-step procedure for anything, so it makes sense that we pay close attention to this scripture in creating or reforming a dispute resolution system for use in a Christian community.
Since this has been a topic or has had a small "following" in repeated requesting, I'm curious as to what the advocates for this proposed addition think will actually be brought about in way of benefits. Aside from the mentioned 'removing doubts' or tension (which can equally be attributed to entertaining gossip BTW), I don't see how a user allowing their appeal to be made public would bring change, much less benefit. After all, it isn't a popularity/polling based moderation or a democracy where viewers have a vote, and it isn't a shareholder's position where investment brings authority. So even if the moderation was placed into the extreme of it was clearly correct application or clearly mishandled/in error, what benefit would it be for random (very much assumed) viewing merely for the sake of 'seeing'.
If the member and mod can't work it out between the two of them, let the first appeal be private, with only the mod's immediate superiors able to view it. Gossip is a problem, but it can happen among staff just as much as it can happen among members. Making appeals visible to all staff but invisible to all members does not solve the gossip problem. Staff can gossip via PMs and staff forums, and members can gossip via PMs and Elsewhere.
You're right that this forum is not modeled after a democracy or a corporation. What should it be modeled after? Shouldn't we look first to the procedures prescribed by Jesus himself for resolving disputes in a church? There may be some difficulties with applying that procedure here, but shouldn't we look at it first.
As specifically applied to the OP, Jesus prescribes a first step that is entirely private, a second step that brings in one or two helpers, and a third step that is public. Jesus doesn't expect us to be perfect. We can't always resolve disputes privately. Sometimes we need help, and sometimes it is appropriate to make it public, if all else has failed.
After all, moderators need to develop their skills and require the same grace and privacy during the process (to my understanding) and that already contains a jury of peers via fellow moderators. If the spirit of the rules are applied on both sides, legalism and hyper-focusing on precedents are avoided.
A VERY important point that should be added to the OP's suggestion, IMHO.
If we want to follow Matthew 18, there needs to be an opportunity to work things out privately before making it public. A mod might realize he or she made a mistake. If so, let that mod reverse his/her decision before the appeal is made public.
Additionally, it's not actually being proposed that non-Christians should have a say in the moderation on a Christian forum, is it?
Another point for discussion, after the other points have been explored.
