Hmm, I guess I misunderstood. But in that case, it's a bit of a mixed message. You say: > we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to thro

Hmm, I guess I misunderstood. But in that case, it's a bit of a mixed message. You say: > we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to throw slurs then you say: >We don't, though. We have moderators (hi dang) who get rid of those people. In the first you consider moderators as part of the community. In the second you don't it seems. And the people who can downvote I think are probably so high enough in number as to be seen as normal users and not moderators. The perception of the moderation in larger communities is that it is way more heavy handed and less accountable than the moderation that dang does. For example, in HN, I can see messages from dang warning a user they are repeating offences they have committed and I can easily see their past posts to verify whether that's true or not. And dang at least gives more than one-worded defenses or explanations about certain cases of moderation in the public forum itself and not restricted to private messages. HN even says you can email them regarding certain cases you feel strongly about. With Twitter, when an account is suspended you can't see the paper trail between the moderators and the user, or the past posts. And you need to get a hold of some hotshot acquaintence with a decent amount of followers to publically make your case to get the company big-wigs to notice. In HN, even in cases of shadow-banning, though newbies might not be aware, you can even toggle the shadow-banning off and see all the posts unfiltered. In Twitter, that option does not exist I think. It doesn't scale people say? Well, no one said it's easy...