I never said it was a moderation failure, as I said it was politely given. And I'm not providing links because I don't have them, these are things I've noted o

I never said it was a moderation failure, as I said it was politely given. And I'm not providing links because I don't have them, these are things I've noted over the years as a lurker. There's so much back patting about the moderation on this site that I'm often miffed that no one sees the negative consequences. No system or approach is perfect, and the approach you guys take on this site has its share of downsides as well. I once saw a person on this site argue all safety regulations should be gotten rid of and let the market decide the cost. The theory is that as more accidents happen the insurance will rise and that will self-correct by causing companies to enforce their own internal safety requirements. The implication being it's ok for Bob to live the rest of his life without a leg because the company was willing to pay the insurance premium. That Bob's quality of life shouldn't factor into the equation. The problem is that when someone has an opinion like this, they cannot be put down as strongly as they should. "In real life" if someone walks into a public space and announces they believe a 30 year old should be able to enter into a sexual relationship with a 10 year old, not only would there be a reaction, there would be a __very strong reaction__, and the strength of that reaction is a part of the policing we do amongst ourselves as a society. But because of the values this site has, if someone were to express that opinion on these boards, the people getting banned would be the ones reacting strongly. And _THAT_ is why I agreed with the other poster that you do, in fact, moderate based upon HOW someone says something while pointing out that it has its downsides.