1. Should moderators edit posts?
MikeB wrote:2. Should threads be locked?
Normally... No. There is usually _some_ decent content in a thread to keep it going.
The only way I can see a reason for a thread to be locked is if is really out of control and the mods want to remove it, lock it to prevent further posting while deleting the thread.
MikeB wrote:3. Do you believe in banning those ( permanently or short term) for those who break the rules?
Of course. This is not a daycare and users should be able to follow the charter.
I would go as far as removing a user for the rest of a moderation term if he/she were to be banned 3 times previously. They have shown that there is no respect for the rules put forth, and why should moderators have to put up with it?
MikeB wrote:4. Do you beleive a moderator should work quietly behind the scenes or be more visible?
You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. That is what moderation comes down to.
Whether visible or not, moderators should do whatever is best for the bulletin board. There are times that you have to state something in public, and there are times that you don't. A good moderator will know when those times are, and try not to be intrusive when he/she is not needed.
MikeB wrote:5. If somebody ( say repeated repeat offender) makes a post that has some value - but then slips in a few comment that clearly break the rules (foul. obscene language) - how would you handle?
I would remove the post and ask them to repost it without the material that was offending.
One could allow him time to edit their own post, but there is no guarantee it could be done with in the 15 minute edit window.
So removing it and asking for a repost, would be the best solution in my estimation.
I got kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bible's to the fiction section.