This fucking site.

Wait why does "reports have been handled" mean "mod approved"? Poly was temp banned for two days following that post. 

Perhaps some indicator could be added to posts that are considered in violation?

Without some explicit indicator or flag or label or note or strike-through, the bad behavior could easily appear to be accepted practice.

Once a post is flagged and a mod addresses it a note is in the place of the flag. That's all. 

I think a more explicit indication that action was taken against the poster for violation of the site rules might be in order.

Or they could just delete content that breaks the rules.

I agree.

Wait why does "reports have been handled" mean "mod approved"? Poly was temp banned for two days following that post. 

Perhaps some indicator could be added to posts that are considered in violation?

Without some explicit indicator or flag or label or note or strike-through, the bad behavior could easily appear to be accepted practice.

Post #36

A member quickly expressed their preference for post deletion. Short of threats or doxxing, I am against post deletion, personally.

A member quickly expressed their preference for post deletion. Short of threats or doxxing, I am against post deletion, personally. 

There is too much emphasis on the forums, too few people participate in formal debates, too many people participate exclusively in the forums, and the moderators are defending their moderating style based on what people say about them on the forums.

So the reason I'm highlighting the excessive forum participation vs. the debate participation ratio of all your examples is to demonstrate that it is almost entirely forum users who think the moderators are too "heavy-handed" (as you say), but people like myself who mainly emphasize debate participation (or have a more balanced approach) are frustrated by inconsistent, ineffective and heavily delayed moderator actions on the debates/comments/votes.

Essentially, to spell it out for you, I'm saying you have a flaw in your statistical analysis. You are claiming that a majority of users are voicing complaints about "heavy-handedness", when in reality your examples show that all such users making those complaints are forum-heavy with little or no debate-participation. You have excluded a large part of the user-base from your analysis to focus only on a vocal minority.

A member quickly expressed their preference for post deletion. Short of threats or doxxing, I am against post deletion, personally. 

Perhaps some indicator (other than deletion, perhaps even a note saying "post in violation") could be added to posts that are considered in violation?

Without some explicit indicator or flag or label or note or strike-through, the bad behavior could easily appear to be accepted practice.

I'll run it by Mike. It'll be task #859,393 on his to-do list, heh.

Moderation should not listen to people who are primarily active in the forums

Again, strawman. It seems you are getting some of my ideas/opinions mixed up with other users. Others have said that the mods should act without consideration of public opinion. I have not ever directly supported that idea, nor have I ever said that forum users should be entirely ignored if they refuse to participate in formal debates. 

I have said that it's damn weird to sign up for a formal debate site just to lurk in the forums and never debate, but that is largely a side-point to my main thesis.

So, one more time for you; 
Each time I ask moderators to delete posts that violate the rules, the moderator rebuttal is that they cannot delete posts because "the community" told them not to do that. However, every person asked about it in this thread has said the exact opposite, indicating that "the community" obviously has a different opinion than what the moderators are claiming.

But the forums are the only place where people, y'know... talk.

Without some explicit indicator or flag or label or note or strike-through, the bad behavior could easily appear to be accepted practice.

Undeleted but struck-through posts would also serve as examples of what is unacceptable.  That would be my choice.  Obviously offending posts may have to be doctored to mangle anything that can't be public, but deletion just creates mystery and conspiracy theories.    

But the forums are the only place where people, y'know... talk.

The comments on a debate are de facto forum threads.

You already know the answer to this, I think.

I have said that it's damn weird to sign up for a formal debate site just to lurk in the forums and never debate, but that is largely a side-point to my main thesis.

I think you secretly want to be like us.

Undeleted but struck-through posts would also serve as examples of what is unacceptable.  That would be my choice.  Obviously offending posts may have to be doctored to mangle anything that can't be public, but deletion just creates mystery and conspiracy theories.     

I'll run it by Mike. It'll be task #859,393 on his to-do list, heh. 

Thank you.