Spam/Nuisance Posts

Ah, you just proved my point: you had to dig for the T&Cs... which means the percentage of people who even see them, let alone read them, would be small. As for the moderators: they already exist. There are certain members, myself included, who have more capabilities than others. However, no one, I believe, has the ability to remove posts or threads outside of their own. Absolute power corrupts, and I personally don't like the idea that I could delete threads or posts without either: other people knowing about it; the reasons for it; or arbitration. But even that brings inherent issues - who decides who becomes a moderator, how do we go about ensuring moderators stay balanced in judgements, how do we force moderators to be active in posting reasons etc.? Furthermore, who has the time? With probably as many as ten new threads a day on average, and at least twice as many new posts, you'd have to moderate all of them. Wikipedia is notorious at the moment, because they have the same issues. Although you need to register to edit, etc., people have been abusing the editing/writing system, as well as abusing high moderator powers. How do we decide what constitutes a good post? We can all agree on certain things, like discussing an actor's body parts in a disrespectful way, but what about the issues that are just a matter of personal taste? You speak of the recent KTW thread... I've been following it too, but it's the usual banter about misunderstandings and offenses being taken from a review. Until humans are capable of both being unoffended and clear, precise communication with no error, I doubt anything will change. I'm not being defeatist here; but as Grant has mentioned, it's not just implementing rules, but about encouraging more participation. We're hardly encouraging participation by either restricting it or deciding for someone else what is or isn't offensive/annoying. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne