**It would be interesting to see how well things would function with a [well-schooled] devout Roman Catholic sharing in the duties of moderating in the [current] Religion Forum,**
I have always felt there is more than 1 moderator. RFM-1 and RFM-2. One is slightly more engaging in some banter and the other is, shall we say, more clinical in carrying out their duties. Not saying either one is right or wrong, just different. Who is to say that a devout RC isn’t a mod? On this board it is hard to say who is and isn’t a mod. Right Alex? ;-)
So my question is, why should the members decide who the moderator is? Isn’t that, in our case anyway, turning the asylum over to the inmates? (And that is meant to cut both ways)
Hey...it could be like in high school and people got to vote for class president/Religion Moderator! They could run campaigns and make promises about how they would be the "better" moderator. ;o)
However, seeing as this is a nonpaying gig and volunteered time, I really don't see how changing the anonymity of the RM into a democratically elected "preferred" moderator(s) position would actually benefit anyone at all. The SAME rules would still apply and the Mods couldn't play favorites - meaning they would have to deal with comments equally and fairly. This would mean they really couldn't moderate as some would like them to by deciding which comments were okay and which ones were not content-wise, not personal. Of course, to some people, ANY criticism of their beliefs IS personal.
