Quote from: hugolp on August 30, 2011, 06:22:40 PM

Quote from: BlockHash on August 30, 2011, 06:16:25 PM

Quote from: kjj on August 30, 2011, 06:13:19 PM

Quote from: Elwar on August 30, 2011, 06:07:12 PM

Yes, because everyone loves being moderated.

You belong in 1984.

While very few people like it when moderation is done to them, very many people prefer it when moderation is done for them.

Until a moderator comes along that doesn't like your particular point of view and uses the banhammer to silence your voice.

Yes, yes, the market will correct itself eventually, but why go through that in the first place? It just seems like people here don't like to see anything that is contrary to their worldview. The Bruce situation is wrong with the accusation of pedophilia, but it is very justified in questioning his decision making and heavy handedness when it comes to the location he chose.

Its easier than that. You can moderate by not allowing coments claiming something without proof or citation, and even more important not allowing personal attacks (unless they can clearly proof what they are saying about the other forum member is true).

With those two clear rules you can get quite a good forum without having to limit the range of ideas someone can express.

I agree with this. I think this is a good standard and a policy like this would be very beneficial to the community.

So in your system, we could discuss the situation with Pattaya and the organizing of the conference in the way it was, but it would be off-limits to throw baseless pedophilia claims around. This is what should be happening here.