I’m a fan of whim,
Similar to the paraconsistent logic choice.
You get the whim to open it up; the whim being likely fed by Logic – you open it.
You get the whim to approve posts, the whim likely being led by Logic – you submit all new posts to approval.
In short, as Philosopher-King, you hold the scepter and, even though I am a social anarchist, I’m not a believer in democracy as the ultimate arbitrator of proper decision-making, although it *can* influence, just as the popularity of Oprah Winfrey’s book recommendation can lead to a lot of people voting with their pocketbooks to buy a particular book, feeling as if they are decided en-masse, democractically, to take a stand to endorse a particular way of thinking as outlined in a particular book.
In short, I expect a prize to be hiding under my chair. [does she still do that?] if I come to this show enough times, but it’s your show, and I trust in your leadership whims. They seem to work just fine.
This is not ass-kissing. This is me saying, “I don’t want to pretend to run this show.” I’ve led many communities before in other online areas and while _my_ tendency was to let the communities sort out their OWN flame wars and issues… once people’s quality of posts left my expectations, I’d pull them aside and talk to them. [virtually of course] to pull them back in line.
They’d leave, or they’d stay and comply. The “sense of free speech” is an important one for the majority of people to believe they have.
Now in my case, I dealt with the _people_ who were making the posts directly, quietly and in the background.
SJ may generally prefer to deal with the _posts_ made by the people, quietly and in the background.
But it amounts to functionally the same thing. It’s a lot of work either way but it works. Anything to avoid, people excessively talking about “low quality of posts” INSTEAD-OF what the discussion topics are supposed to be themed around.
I’m a fan of whim,