The community gets the community it deserves. If moderation becomes opinion and civility police as per 5 and 6, then it is no longer an open community. If no one is spamming or posting NSFW material, there cannot be a rule against it. One group dictating to another what expression is acceptable means that one group of self important people are proclaiming themselves the rulers of all other participants, which is in contradiction to the first proposal. Throw away people with good ideas and passion because they hurt your feewings and you've doomed yourself, especially in a project as focused on freedom and independence as this. If freedom means anything at all it means the right to say things that other people don't want to hear.

The contention that all rules can or should be inflated to the point of class warfare between the elite "mod" class and the hardworking poster is absurd, as is the idea the "the only good rule is a dead rule". I admit that there are bad rules and some people will abuse them, but it seems that netizens take pride in a brutally enforced lawlessness when most of their past problems were caused by a lack of appropriate rules rather than an excess of rules (at least on the internet).

Ah well, so be it then. Enjoy your tyrant hill like every other stagnant faux-community on the internet, then. I came here to hear ideas, not exchange phony platitudes with children who need civility police to hold their hand. I'll look elsewhere for ideas since clearly self-important egostroking is precisely what you are interested in. The community gets the community it deserves. Ever wonder why they're all so bad? Yeah, it's because of this sort of nonsense, which is mutually exclusive with openness and participation. It's not like I don't come up against this mentality often on the internet - better to find out and bail on a doomed community sooner than later before giving your heart to something. I do hope this project gets a competent community in the future, though. It's a tragedy to see good ideas destroyed by poor leadership.

@Hilscher ,  item 5 states " we should aim for positive interaction and avoid attacking individuals". To me, "should aim" and "avoid attacking" both look like a mild suggestion, not like a razor-sharp hard rule. Do you disagree?

@ Hilscher - You have obviously been a "victim" of moderation in the past then.  Would you care to share some of your experiences or has this bitterness consumed you?  Why would anyone have a problem with being told to behave?  Do you tend to cause problems or do you feel misunderstood?

Here's some good advice for you.  It has been my experience that we tend to see in others what in reality we are projecting.  Think about that for a moment.

The Dawg

I am happy with the way this conversation resolved itself because it demonstrated the strength inherent in the system we are creating.  In the industrial model, centralized authority determines and enforces everything.  Whereas, in the networked community, individuals create the atmosphere necessary for them to thrive.  We do not state emphatically that swearing is off limits and that any criticism must be sandwiched by two compliments.  Rather we agree that we have gathered together with one purpose, developing our personal vision of Open Source Ecology.

@mjn - Mark I too have been deeply involved in many forums and I think you are right here.  There has to be a balance.

One of the worse things you can do is feed a troll.  Most are looking for attention, good or bad.  Remove that and the problem goes away all on its own.  Unfortunately, the negative wounds are left behind in the old messages forever.  So sometimes it's better to remove posting rights for a while and see if clearer thoughts rise to the top.

The Dawg