>>147984Thanks for a quality reply.
I disagree with the assumption that doing the most mod actions is providing the most value.
If you look at some posts and believe they don't need deleting, and vobbly thinks the same posts do, then no matter how online you are, they will always
appear more active in the modlog. They're making work for themselves, work that doesn't need to be done, and I would claim, is destructive. The modlog itself, along with the rate of invasions and commercial CP spam (a few posts a day), show that most of the moderation activity by the big names is unnecessary at best. So when I say users should rarely notice them, I'm not trying to suggest 'pick people who aren't there', I mean pick people who are less likely to delete posts from people using the site sincerely, who aren't taking the job because they think the mods aren't deleting enough to curate. And, like you said, this site does a decent job of that.
>but to have a way for mods to be held accountable and answerable to the users. This is where .org is fucking up the hardest. I do agree, but I also acknowledge that accountability is hard to do online (in any material way). Not impossible, certainly not, and also not worth dismissing as 'too hard', but takes actual planning, user involvement and bureaucracy, especially if we don't assume a large amount of good faith.