Curiously, others have made very blatant remarks (known as flames in the world of online forums) and you didn't lift a finger. Curioser still, they were remarks made by your side of the debate. If RAZD, an evolutionist, had dared to call another poster a heretic, a heathen or said they should be burnt at the stake, etc. (during the time you were going through your fanatical tirade), he sure as sh** woulda been "modded".
I don't think ikester was modding the board at that time because of the hurricane in Florida. He said he lost power. When he got back on the board things had sort of spiraled out of control. It's kinda hard to reign in things and administer discipline when things get too far gone. It's best to just draw a line and start from that point.
So from my vantage point I think your disappointment with moderating comes from a lack of clearly forumulated -- and clearly adhered to -- set of rules. But I can only judge things based on my perspective and that's how I see it.
I think any real moderating has to have a set of rules so everyone knows where the line is. It is still a judgment call by the moderator but at least he/she has something to point to. Plus the rules don't have to be set in stone. They can be clarified or modified if there are problems with implementation.
For example, there should be a rule about "rude" remarks or posts. However, one man's rude is another man's statement of fact. The rules regarding rude behavior should be bounded to allow certain freedom of speech without allowing hateful remarks. Perhaps a consensus is needed as to what will be allowed and what will not.
This discussion may be moot anyway since it doesn't look like ikester will moderate this forum. That is a disappointment since he never got a chance at it here.
