Part 2
I do have to put my bit in that many topics in the general section (written by amateurs) do go too far with hurley burly and spoil conversations for others. Given the above context to me such angst is unnecessary and in many cases simply laziness or mischief both of which are fine untill they simply derail conversations...contrary to the site's goals .

Finally, I have no real problem beyond the latter.
I do believe that the committee it will free you of some of the issues they work on several other sites I write to.

In short I think the idea may help OLO.

Cheers Constable Examinator :-) (joke)

I think you have your answer all ready Graham.

Trying to get a panel which would not be a bunch of biased censors, in more than a few areas, would be very hard to do.

Although I have detected a certain "mother hen" tendency in action to protect the authors of articles from heavier criticism, I have not found any bias in its application.

I see nothing wrong in the present set up, & a host of difficulties in trying to make it fairer in perception, but not in fact.

Generally it those on the left who can't accept the umpires decision. Whether it be you Graham or a panel they can't accept authority because they believe that they are a god. Personally I like the way things are. It is not perfect but works pretty well.

Runner..did you tug your forelock, bow, scrape, geneflect, light a candle, sprinkle water and offer something up when you posted that, just to make sure you had complied with all possible, yet unknown, demands from The Authority Above?

I have to take issue with this line, "Generally it those on the left who can't accept the umpires decision" because I'm not sure what 'being on the left' means, what with Gillard being touted as a 'left wing' politician it seems to have lost all meaning when she is just as right wing as Abbott on most election issues, and certainly as unreliable as Rudd ever was when it comes to inventing 'new' policy at the drop of a hat, oops, sorry, focus group pencil.

What would be a perfect forum Runner?

One where everyone agreed with your handed down views and didn't have anything different to offer?

Why bother with a forum?

Why not just get your instructions for the day from a tweet service, and carry on 'irregardless' as the Great Stoneage Senator Barnaby Rubble says?

Accepting 'authority' eh? Is that what motivates your life?

Would you walk the minefields to clear the way for the SAS, just because you were told to?

Commit the war crimes that soldiers are wont to do, under orders, all the time?

I wonder if you can describe what 'authority' is, and where that differs to just 'behaving in a reasonable way'?

Perhaps a new thread there Runner?

That said, I'm pleased to see that we agree on there be little call for a disruption to the status quo, such as GY suggested.

Generally speaking what happens is that the mods mention their need for help and persons volunteer by contacting them direct. No publicity or debate, just pick whoever you see fit and with inevitable wastage withdraw rights and again appoint as you see fit (flick an email to the possible volunteer/s).

It is not something that should be up for a vote or attempted agreement/consensus because the buck always remains with GY et al. Enlightened dictatorship is appropriate, fair and the only realistic alternative.

It is a nice thought and consideration that a group might come up with agreed names, but this is not a cohesive or responsible group in any sense just a changing collection of anonymouses.

As for any new rules, the volunteer mods and the the current incumbents chat away together whenever they see a need and come up with something without reference to the wider group. It is inappropriate to debate new rules with the wider audience, however ideas on improvements to the site should always be welcome.

You already have clues as to a name or two, just go to them and they would be confidential if your judgement is good which should be the case. Consider ruling out all who have transgressed to date, for obvious reasons. No need to blood any particular number of mods first up, just get one or two and suck it and see. Don't rule out article contributors too for possible volunteers.

My 2c worth.

Dear Graham,

As you can see from the responses I don't think
that a Moderation panel is going to work - especially
if chosen from current contributors. There will be
resentment from certain quarters who are opposed to
any manner of advice from anybody that dares to
suggest on how they should be talking and behaving.

Personally, I don't believe in tanking people's
opinions, however I do believe that there should
be an "etiquette" in how we post. That's common
practice in other Forums. I think that part of the
problem with posting in cyberspace is that its
anonymous. I'm sure that many people who now feel
that they can use the Forum for their own "amusement"
sometimes at the expense of others,
feel they can do this
because they can hide behind the shield of anonymity.
They would perhaps behave differently if this was not
the case. Perhaps not.

I don't have a problem with the way things are at present.
Rules are currently in place to which we're supposed to
adhere. And, you Graham, I've always found to be fair
as a moderator. I think that the current problems that
may be happening at present is due to the fact that we
are dealing with highly emotive subjects - politics,
religion, and so on. People have strong opinions.
Anyway, as I said - I'd prefer to leave things as they are.