Last night (Oz time) I was reading an article in New Scientist about the origins of spite in human behaviour. The gist of it seemed to show that those individuals who tried to increase their own rewards at the expense of others who 'played more fairly and equitably' were quickly brought back into line when a short bit of punitive behaviour (defined as "spite") was unleashed at them by the otherwise equitable rest of the group. The relevance of that article (early May, 2009) to this thread seems, to me, to be that individuals that the community regards as 'miscreants' bring their behaviour closer to the community's favoured norms when everyone sees that objectionable behaviour incurs visible retributive response.

To me, that suggests that Mudcat moderators could make their moderations more frequently and obviously public. Several posters in the thread have suggested such a move as a putative improvement at Mudcat, and others have suggested that this might remove favouritism in the treatment of particular 'catters. I can't say I've noticed anyone being treated more or less favourably that others but I might be too new (or too selective in the threads I peruse) to have experienced it.

Normally I abhor retribution as a behaviour but the evidence in the article was impressive. If it were canvassed I suspect that then we'd be entangled in quarrels about standards, real or imagined, and "rights". In the meantime I enjoy the vagaries brought to our community by the varieties of outlooks and individuals in it. And try to write in terms I'd be happy to see against my name in the Final Ledger. Assuming there is one, of course.

Keep up the good work, Joe.

Cheers, Rowan