[comesee]

I disagree, our civilization is built on codified laws, otherwise dictators arbitrarily decide what is allowed and what isn't. Is that justice? You're defending injustice. Rules must be written down and clarified, if I'm wrong so is civilization.

[scott_s]

Codified laws are always interpreted by judges. Our legal system is not a computer program; humans are in the loop, and that is a feature, not a bug.

[wild_preference]

It's a forum with two moderators, not a civilization with a multi-tiered court justice system to interpret the laws.

You're going to have to live with that.

If you disagree so much, maybe it's time to go somewhere else and spare the rest of us from your permanent, belabored grudge. Like, boo hoo. Seriously. Hopefully you find something else to spend your precious time on earth worrying about.

[anticensor]

Well, two active moderators (dang&sctb) and one administrator with unused moderative powers (pg).

[jlawson]

Some amount of randomness/inconsistency is to be expected for the reasons you're indicating. As you said, it's just some moderators, not a court system.

But, when that arbitrariness always, always favors one set of viewpoints and suppresses others according to content, then in becomes a problem. That's not randomness, that's bias.

Eg: Person A says controversial opinion X, person B counters with controversial opinion Y. This can lead to a flame war. But which controversial opinion gets censored? The one the mods disagree with. And the excuse it, to prevent a flame war. Which is valid. But it's always the same side of the discussion that gets silenced by power.

The pre-judged outcome really drains the life and value from a lot of the most enervating discussions around here. I'd rather have read "flamewar" (as long as it's not personal) than an enforced echo chamber.

[otterley]

This isn't a public forum; it's a private one. If you don't agree with the opinions of the moderators or the culture here, you're welcome to build a competitive site.