powertoad,

i can understand where you are comming from.

if you have antipoint moderators with wildly different ideas about what is appropriate and what is not
that is why we would need a screening process for the applicants. the mods shoudnt have control over how much damage each assignment does, just whether it should go through or not. and if someone goes lightly or too heavy, the tuff, because its not like its going to go throuh the same person all the time, it would be spread out over many people who have different ideas.

besides, would you rather it be treated differently and not gone through if it was a ned, then a greenie, or would you rather then to all go through.

as i have learnt from human nature, i could almost guarantee that the majority of negs (the unjust ones) will not go through and the majority or greens, however unjust, will probably go through.

In the past it was JP who looked at the assignments, 1 person = no-one complaining about unfair treatment.
you cant tell me that JP moderated ALL assignments, and we may not have to monitor all assignments either. hmmm... maybe there is a way to define the intesity of an assignment, and only those can be moderated. you never hear complaints about a neg that took off a couple of points, you only hear about that ones that do real damage.

is there any way to screen those against little ones?