Dear Mr. Koss,

I recently heard rumor about some distressing social dynamics over here - distressing to me, anyway, because this is a site with a mission I support.

I wrote what I hoped was a thoughtful, non-inflammatory post about it, and I attempted to respond to comments for as long as I could.

The result - many, many accusations of sockpuppetry, trusted users hiding my most effective defensive posts, and persistent attempts at misdirection. This is the very phenomenon I was expressing concern about.

While I realize I'm a new user here, I'm not really new to this type of forum. There are serious ramifications for the type of censorship being practiced by your trusted users. If contrary ideas are being silenced, rather than addressed, how well equipped are your participants to face real-world challenges, where censorship and collective stifling are not options?

There will always be times when censorship, no matter how distasteful, will be necessary to protect the integrity of the forum. I would urge you, however, to re-examine the process by which this occurs. Once a member has achieved trusted status, is there any feedback for that member about the appropriateness of their actions? Would you perhaps consider creating more explicit guidelines for when troll-rating is appropriate? This would at least improve the consistency in how standards are defined, and in their application. Finally, would you consider allowing an appeal for users who, believing they've acted in good faith, could plead their case?

I like the take from the Gospel According to Thomas: "The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand would be firm enough. Then he slew the powerful man."

This is a marvelous place for people to come and test the strength of their hand, before they go out into the world and make it better. Removing walls rather undermines that possibility.

Thanks for you consideration.

TenaciousK