I can't tell you how overjoyed I am to see these open discussions, topjimmy. I was banned on another account (with over 15 reviews and over 60 comments) because a moderator took offense to a blunt but respectful and polite PM I sent to him about a vague warning he gave on one of my posts.
When I first saw this particular question, my thought was "Do the opposite of you know who. He's a menace." Upon reflection, however, I decided to be more helpful. In the spirit of David Letterman, my top 10 list for the perfect moderator is someone who...
1. Posts why a review is rejected as a follow-up comment to a review. Along the lines of "This review did not earn review credits because [insert reason]" and include a specific violation/reason (for example, visit occurred over 30 days ago). This will educate not only the reviewer but other mongers as well for future reference.
2. Keeps the vitriol in his back pocket. No need for the wise guy, snarky, curse-filled posts and PMs.
3. Is consistent. Applies the same standards for accepting/rejecting reviews and warning and banning members.
4. Actually enforces the expectations for a review. Your post from October 28, 2018 clearly outlines what should be included in the reviews.
5. Does not become bigger than the site. Anyone remember the Bobby Brady Hall Monitor episode from the Brady Bunch? Moderators shouldn't be Bobby Brady.
6. Knows when it's time to give up moderators duties (for example, he doesn't have the time to perform the functions adequately).
7. Actually enjoys his work as a moderator.
8. Accepts and provides constructive criticism.
9. Is as invisible as possible while still performing the duties.
10. Has a means to contact someone who can effect change, like passing on member suggestions for merging or adding sections. Maybe this could be done by simply creating a sticky labeled "Website Suggestions" that someone with authority can read periodically.
Side note: As a follow up to #4, any thoughts on a system where someone can get full, partial, or zero credit vs. just full or none? For example, an otherwise informative, helpful and compliant review is missing a detail like a phone number or using an abbreviation for the spa name (EGS vs. Evergreen Spa) or not spelling out the name of the town (Conshy vs. Conshohocken). Someone with one of these simple mistakes would be given 1/2 the review credit. I'm sure it would encourage more complete details. I personally find phone numbers and full town and spa names helpful because I travel a lot and searching a planned destination is more complete when good/full details are provided.
