Who wants to be a moderator here?

Make him a Mod in the political arena and you are probably gonna see other surprises.

It's all in that power .... once they get it, the demons come out!

 

It all depends on what the TOS specifies. If the TOS says that posting false or deceptive information is banned, then moderation includes removing stuff that is provably false or deceptive.

That's all I'm saying.

 

I agree 100%! On top of that, the editing must be done in a way that shows it was done and provides references.

Everyone is limited to replying unless they are a moderator.

If you are an expert, you won't make mistakes in your area of expertise.

A moderator would only step in if there were no replies which correct the mistake.

I know. I'm expressing an opinion of how I think it should work. Nothing more or less. That doesn't make me a bad person.

 

Anyone who believes and trusts random stuff on the Internet probably deserves what they get.

Remember that these are discussion forums, not the ARRL Handbook. You can't expect everything to be accurate, and attempting to make it so via editing is just a losing battle. You're just going to wind up alienating a lot of people and causing a lot of arguments.

 

I've agreed with that ever since JFK said it.

I don't expect everything to be 100% accurate but I DO expect that clear mistakes be corrected, and bad practices pointed out as bad practices. I see way too much Hammy Hambone stuff passed off as acceptable - that's just not good.

I think the real issue is that some folks are afraid that their cherished myths will be exposed as such, and their bad practices will no longer be praised.

Here's a start:

Why do amateurs use lower sideband on 75 meters and upper sideband on 20 meters?

 

Bad example, because who really cares except for someone interested in ancient history? You might as well have asked "why do amateurs use CW rather than spark?"

Again, all of this is covered in definitive sources, such as the ARRL Handbook. Attempting to increase the SNR of the Internet is doomed to failure.

 

Is this information going to factor into the elections and other political topics of discussion?

 

Your obsession with everything has to be perfect is scary.

 

Does scarry mean something with scars?

 

Typo.

 

Is the moderator supposed to invest time on all subject matter to ensure the accuracy of ALL posts? Come on Jim! What kind of discussion forums could exist with that kind of TOS? LOL

You keep forgetting that this is a discussion forum, not a reference material site, no matter what the topic.

 

/The Cat Lady shakes her head, heads to the Litterbox....

 

The point is that if a moderator KNOWS something is clearly inaccurate, it can be fixed under the TOS.

Doesn't have to be 100%. Doesn't have to be 99%. Or 98%. Whatever.

I guess folks are afraid of being held to ANY standard of accuracy. Or logic. Or anything else.

 

Why would a moderator have to edit a post because there were no correction replies? Why can't the moderator just make a correcting post like everyone else, then there is a correction reply? This makes no sense to me Jim.

 

I really cannot believe I am reading this stuff.
There are times when i wish I could put threads on IGNORE....