Hello all,
We are, it's true, inevitably inconsistent with regard to moderation for a few of reasons.
First, we generally only respond to reported posts, so am quite sure there are things we delete "when worse posts are to be found on the boards".
Secondly sometimes there are some very tricky calls and grey areas and individuals at MNHQ might react differently even though they are applying the same guidelines (though we do try to confer as much as possible).
Thirdly, we no doubt get it wrong sometimes. (Apologies for that!)
What we do try to apply is a set of principles and we try to apply them no matter who the poster. (Unless that poster is a known imposter/troll)
Those are: we will remove personal attacks and illegal comments.
We also have a "beyond the pale" /"anti the spirit of the site" /"this has deteriorated into a bunfight that's causing a lot of misery" level of intervention, which is inevitably a judgement call.
I do understand, given a certain level of inconsistency that will always occur, that some might see the idea of no moderation at all as a good way to go but tbh I think we would end up with an unholy free for all - you think AIBU's bad now!
What's more I think it matters from a search point of view to delete the nasty stuff not to mention the press if we allowed everything to stand - they would just be able to selectively quote the real shockers - really doesn't bear thinking about.
As a general rule MN is what the posters make it. There's no magic button that makes everyone civil. As you know we do not police the boards aggressively but rely on members report abuse. So if you think people are being over-aggressive or deliberately inflammatory in AIBU or elsewhere, report them. That ultimately is the best way to change the tone, and whilst you may not always agree with our decisions we do promise to have a look at each and every report (though if we're really busy it may take a day or two) and to be as consistent as we possibly can!
Thanks for the input, as ever.