At times I ask myself, 'what harm would be done by the material that has been moderated?' vs 'what harm is being done by moderating the material?'
I am not criticising those who conduct moderation - I believe they do a stellar job. I would like to draw your attention to the 'rules'. It is my impression that within the rules there are clauses of the sort that may be vastly improved by their demise.
Would the forum administration be willing to accept revision of the rules or forum structure in the nebulous public interest (defined by a high majority/unanimity of voters?). Quote something:
If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.
