I just read back my initial journal entry and it still makes sense. That's surprising, as it's not the norm for me.

I got moderator points a few weeks ago, and it's really strange: I just keep getting them, to the point where I had 2 left.. then I had 5 left! I'm almost disappointed for losing 2 moderator points.. :)

I've noticed a correlation between meta-moderation and the assignment of moderation points. Whenever I get meta-moderated "fair" (almost exclusively so) for my previous moderations, I seem to get moderator points again.

It's strange though. I get karma through posting, but I get moderator points for moderating fairly... The two don't reall go together as the more I moderate the less I can post, if I want to moderate effectively.

I find myself moderating posts up in a thread and then wanting to post, but not wanting to, so my moderating is maintained. It's as if I look at the threads in a different way, compared to when I'm posting in them. I guess that's what a moderator is supposed to do, but it's a bit restrictive on the desire to post. It's a funny feeling of freedom when I spend my last mod point and can go back to reading threads as a poster.

Maybe, it's the feeling of responsiblity that comes along with moderating. But then at times, it seems like there isn't much point to it. Is there a real difference modding +4 to +5? how much effect is it going to have modding something "Interesting" as "Informative" as well? I don't know, but the sheer scale of moderation makes me feel a bit insignificant.

I'm regressing into babbling, so I'll stop here. or maybe here.

It's a bit worrying to think about the implications of moderation on the psyche.
I'm not new to the internet, messageboards or delayed communication, but the simple bluntness of moderation of one of my initial comments was somewhat sobering.

Admittedly, it was a broad statement on a narrow subject, so I was at the mercy of a very specific segment of the moderators (ie those interested in the subject). However, the final moderation (40% troll) was somewhat troubling from a sociological/demographical perspective.
"Troubling" is maybe a strong word to use, but it did give me some unflattering ideas about typical /. reader perception and preconception.
If you post a general non-positive statement on a niche topic, why would such a large portion consider it "trolling"? My initial response was to read back what I'd written and see what could've been inflammatory. I didn't really see much troll worthiness. But I did notice a tendency towards generally humourous comments, or simple critique made by people who had an obvious interest in the subject.
I'll admit to not being all that engrossed in the topic I commented on, but I didn't see anything wrong with making a comment that wasn't off-topic. I gave my view. It got canned by those "in-the-know" as trollish.
From what I understand of the moderation messages, all the moderation happened 3 days after I wrote the message. This in itself is interesting as I didn't check /. over the weekend. Did people call me a troll because I wasn't prompt in a reply (,which I made)? If that's the case, then I can't help but feel ppl are missing the point of a messageboard. it's not MSN. people have lives.

ah well.. it was interesting. I have to get back to what I was doing before. I'll consider a comment I make in future with greater care from now on, taking the topic and the audience into more consideration. Live and learn. :)