And then their personal biases are put on display for everyone to see. Moderation decisions should never be based upon personal bias.
Yeah, but it's human nature. Man is a mixture of good and evil. What are you gonna do...
So far as being biased, that's why the model for mauderation needs to be that ''the rules are the rules.''
And strictly enforced
as they're written. No more. No less.
Now. The automatic response will almost always be ''well, then people will post on the edge of the rules in order to get away with stuff.'' Which does happen.
Well...the very same thing could be said for mauderating on the edge of the rules with that ''maud discretion'' excuse rather than by the book in order to equally get away with stuff. And that, too, does happen.
Except that nobody ever invokes the latter argument whenever the discussion comes up.
Anyway. That's why you need at least one strict constructionist on the maud staff to serve as an equalizer. It's the only way anyone will ever really get a fair shake in USMB court if they've truly been peed on by a spiteful maud.
But that likely won't ever happen. Anyone like that would more likely be turned away at the door in order to maintain that whole ''maud discretion'' thing.
And plus I think they do that ranked choice voting thing when selecting new mauds. So then anyone opposed to mauderating by the book itself but rather prefers to operate by invoking ''discretion'' as justification for performing maud actons, whether they're legitimate actions or not, effectively gets two votes to weed out those types and to make sure they don't ever get through the door.
