I had wanted to reply to this conversation in the topic I created, but since the topic was closed, i'll chime in here.
Theres a well defined line between censorship and moderation. A moderator by definition is meant to moderate. To be a voice of reason and keep a conversation going in a civil mannner. When it becomes a moderator's job to make a decision on whether or not an entire thread has merit, that moderator ceases to be a moderator and becomes a censor.
I'm all for keeping discussion civil. I dislike the trolls. I'm frustrated by brand-wars, etc. So, I don't dispute for a minute the need for good and constant moderation. But keep the moderation moderate.
And before someone says it again... I've read the TOS. I understand what it says. I know it says that the moderators can do exactly what we're discussing. This isn't my point. I, and apparently several others, think the system that you've laid out in general for the moderators to follow is far too heavy, and that's why people have voiced their concerns.
I know it's someone else's house, and of course I have to follow someone else's rules. But there's a lot of people in this house that I look up to, and theres a lot of knowledge I can learn here. Personally, I don't stay because of the way this place is moderated. I stay in spite of it. I want to be here among members who can teach me. I'm sure many others do too.
I believe there's far more than the 2% that keith described in the other thread that are frustrated by this manner of "moderation". I just think that since the threads at issue just suddenly disappear, there's a whole lot of people who just don't know what's going on.
Admn Edit
Keith Outten
The original post was innapropriate for SawMill Creek because our Forums are not the proper place for vendors to debate their differences of opinion or technical specifications. The issue would have been better suited for a business meeting in this case.
