[LINK] Moderator Censorship - volunteers should write a charter

[rene]

Furthermore, in an ongoing effort to avoid anything I've said being 
misinterpreted...

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:06:50 +1000, rene wrote:
> In relation to (d), there is imo already "evidence" that that is
> case. I refrained from entering this moderation policy debate until
> my concerns were exacerbated by the observation that expressing the
> opinion that what someone said in a particular post was "claptrap",
> without detailed supporting arguments, does result in a reprimand
> from a moderator, but expressing the opinion that someone who posts
> to this list is "a bit of a kook", without detailed supporting
> arguments, does not. The latter just results in a response which
> starts off with "Sure.  I have no intention of discouraging kooks
> from writing to Link". I am of the opinion that referring to any
> Linker as a "kook" is even more likely to discourage some people from
> posting than is merely opining that what someone said in one
> particular post is "claptrap".

The above *does not* imply that I am accusing RW of intentional 
inconsistency or bias. I consider it quite possible and likely, that by 
that stage of the debate, RW may have formed a view that another moderation 
note would achieve nothing more than to further inflame the debate. My 
point was intended to be solely that subjective policies are impossible to 
apply with consistency, including due to surrounding circumstances which 
may make it highly impractical without very high risk of escalation of 
trouble.

Irene