mingwan, That's still a little simplistic. Even those who have not been 'eliminated' have been in some ways restricted. Having your messages removed for interpreted violations of the TOS is not conducive to balanced debate.
It is not enough to suggest that the deletions can be appealed since in most cases a spirited reply will have some questionable content and will trigger Matt's concurrence. It is the uneven application of those rules that causes the discomfort. I have on a couple of occasions appealed a deletion to Matt and had it restored. On other occasions he has declined to act on a questionable call in deference to the monitor. That is expected and not necessarily bad. The problem is when equally questionable posts from the counter viewpoint are allowed to remain.
It is likely that if they were also removed, Matt would support their deletion as well. Unfortunately it seldom occurs.
You know for a fact that posts from your side of the aisle have at times flagrantly violated the TOS but have been allowed to remain. I am convinced that you are trying to apply the rules as fairly as you can, but you must see that the playing field has been tilted for so long now that it does not represent a balanced forum.
I would expect that, in time a new balance will occur, given the recent changes. As an example, this specific subject was banned by your predecessors. Even the mention of it would trigger a deletion. You on the other hand seem comfortable enough with the state of affairs to broach it yourself. Congratulations on a step in the right direction.
regards,
frog
p.s. And as you say 'there is always RB', where interestingly, the leaders of THIS forum seem to spend most of their time.
