Three observations:


1. I agree that reputation points are a bad idea. Why encourage people to say what they think is popular, instead of what they really believe?

2. I think the ban on "baiting" or "trolling" is silly and impractical. If you post anything even remotely political, there's a fair chance that roughly half the forum will be irritated by it. If you come into a political forum open to all comers, you're going to hear things that upset you, and protecting people from being upset isn't what debate is all about. For my money, a post which explodes the illusions and delusions of others is one of the highest forms of public service -- destroying lies by deploying truth. Everyone in 3000 years of recorded history who ever made a real difference on the political scene, aggravated the crap out of a lot of people in the process. But without such aggravating people, mankind would still be swinging in the trees. America, in particular, was founded by pissed off people who were just plain fed up with their rulers in Europe, and once they got here, they were pretty fed up with each other, too. Being pissed off is a national birthright.

There is another forum in which I received a moderator warning, just for posting an item indicating that Obama had a high approval rating -- because it might inflame the Republicans. Swear to God.

3. Spam needs to be defined. It can't just be characterized as "stuff that aggravates the moderators".