I think self-moderated threads are, almost by definition, censorship.  But then again, when a moderator deletes your post, that's also a form of censorship--but I would not argue that either one is wrong.  I think the forum needs more of this kind of censorship, because usually what's being deleted are either posts that break the rules or ones that are of little value and just distract from the better posts.

Bitcointalk is actually one of the least censoring forums I've ever seen or been a part of.  That's a good thing, but it's also led to a lot of abuses on the part of sig spammers.  I think more people ought to be making their threads self-moderated, and they also should be deleting low-value posts, not ones they just disagree with.  The latter is a bad form of censorship, IMO.

You're probably right about that, but I think if you start a self-moderated thread you should be conservative as far as which posts you nuke.  I've opened a number of threads that I've moderated myself, and I've only felt the need to delete a handful of posts overall.  The last ones I can remember deleting were from the cryptohunter posse, which I had made a local rule about in the OP.  My point was not to discourage people from posting in my threads but to keep the shitposting to a minimum.

Not necessarily, but I do believe that should be the main reason.  As I said, deleting posts that you just happen to disagree with or from members you don't like isn't a very good thing.  The only reason I'd asked cryptohunter and his gang not to post in my thread was because I didn't want any trolling posts there, and I'd heard everything I needed to hear from them.  The thread would have devolved into a flame war.