I'd previously indicated my support for jtadeo to become Moderator here as he appears to be the person best placed amongst us to perform this function. However, I have had a rethink since then --- and this has nothing to do with jtadeo's fitness for the role.

It seems to me that appointing a Moderator, without all the other things that's necessary for effective moderation, is like putting the cart before the horse.

jtadeo will, no doubt, do his best to be as fair as possible to everyone see more if he was made Moderator. But what exactly does "fairness" mean?

I don't want to unnecessarily rehash the past, but a recent example here demonstrates quite starkly how different our ideas of "fairness" are:

- Boonex decided to convert all existing (paid, mind you) licenses into permanent licenses -- this was no freebie, as these licenses had been paid for. Those who were using free (unpaid) licenses continued to be able to use the free licenses as before --- they were not made any worse off by any means. To me (and I suspect Boonex thought the same way as well) this was fair to both sets of users.

- Yet we had a vocal few free license users who kicked and screamed (even calling Boonex scammers) because they missed out on the "freebie". They were not made any worse off by the new arrangement, yet they felt they were being unfairly treated.

It should not be the Moderator's job to decide what is fair and what isn't. Her/his job should simply be to enforce what is already agreed to as fair and acceptable.

So I'll re-post the stuff I had posted previously (but hidden in the forest of posts in somebody else's blog):

-------------------------
If you have:

- Clear, fair and transparent rules;

- Moderators who are seen to be independent (as many Unity members are now lining up into various "camps" and seen as aligning with one party or another) -- and firm in applying the rules;

- A clear, consistent and accessible escalation process for resolving issues;

- Accountability by moderators of their actions (ie transparency of their actions and a clear & independent process for handling moderator complaints).

... then you're already there.

My view is that, given the history here, it is better to have totally clean skin Moderators, particularly at the start. This means people who have not even used Unity before, and only have the (new) rules to go by --- this will minimise people's inclination to question a Moderator's decision, as there is no ammunition (ie a past post) to use in order to challenge his/her decision.

With fewer questioning of Moderators' decisions, we can move much more quickly towards building the future, rather than dwell in the past ad infinitum (and the present even).
---------------------------