Should administrators be neutral?

In asking whether administrators of any one forum should be neutral, i don't actually mean they shouldn't post their own opinions. But they should be neutral in the sense that they respect all opinions, especially those that conflcit with their own. That is, they should not take advantage of their position to cast aspersions and maintain biases. While there was at least one other example on a forum i suggested, Does Islam need a reformation?, which just closed, the final comment of the admin is another. Here it is:"Witching Hour
Allah be praised. Closing this sucker down."The Admin made it clear in an earlier post that he never thought this forum should have been accepted and that he considered it innately racist. His final comment should be understood in that context. Interestingly, his opinion never changed, despite that the work of many respected Muslim writers and scholars was referenced and quoted.

In no way was i suggesting that the forum was closed because of bias. I was only referencing what i consider to be innapropriate behaviour on the part of an administrator.

It indicated pleasure and relief that a forum you disliked had reached 300 posts and would be closed.

If I misread your intent, i apologize. But, in light of your initial rejection of this topic, in light of your opposition to it being accepted anyhow, and in light of a post or two of yours expressing disdain for it and any information I presented and opinions i expressed (i could look it up for the specifics, if necessary), I'm not convinced I misread you. But I'll leave that door ajar (no pun intended).

Actually, I think it's good that mods state their opinions, and clearly at that. As you or, maybe, Crashfrog implied, biases are inevitable and a pretense of objectivity is kind of deceiptful, and purposeless anyhow. The important thing is not to control the thread with those opinions. Authority should only be exercised to ensure decorum and that forum rules are abided.Incidentally, and as an aside - to help other understand me - I believe in evolution, for sure. Debates on the subject are not of interest to me, though, so i don't participate in them. Faith and I, obviously, share conservative philosophies, a conservative outlook, a great respect for Judaism and Christianity, and a perspective on the evolution (couldn't resist) of western civilization. We share concerns about blatant sexuality lowering the tenor of society, and emotionally and psychologically injuring children developmentally (well, given my career as a child therapist, maybe the latter is more mine). And we share a concern that our civilization, in an effort to be fair and nice and tolerant, is losing a sense of itself, a sense of boundaries, a sense of what is innately meaningful.But, we have very different attitudes about faith and its practise, something about which we've debated in disagreement at another forum, several times - and which we don't discuss in our occassional private email dialogue..

Nothing wrong with having "a little fun." But when fun is at the expense of another who cannot answer back, it becomes questionable. Boundaries and a sense of fairplay must be respected by those in control. If there is doubt, then he or she must err on the side of caution. If they do not do that, then there is no point to having moderators. More specifically, there is something wrong when one on the other side of an argument is insulted by those whose responsibility it is to maintain decorum. There is something questionable when a mod uses his or her position to get in the last word, and surely it is wrong when that last word is insulting.

Were thin skin the issue, I might agree. But it is not.