[35amxn35]

No, it's definitely the other way around. Some people enjoy the power trip of censoring someone they disagree with.

The perfect system of rules for moderation would be one you'd comfortably handle out to your ideological adversaries to enforce. If the outcome is still unfair, there's something wrong with the rules.

Something like "I cut, you choose".

[kelseyfrog]

I don't disagree that this type of moderator exists. I've left spaces because of this type of moderator. And I have no issue with your other points, but we're talking about different things.

I've also noticed that there's a group of people who absolutely hate to be told what to do. They have an innate psychological reactance toward it. It shows up in defiance to regulation, paying taxes, and yes even the idea that their internet posts could be moderated. It's a strange attractor in personality-space and they are very effective at using the mechanisms of social construction to pass their ideas off as the natural order.

[eurasiantiger]

All the things you mention are mechanisms of social construction, not natural order.

[35amxn35]

It's more like "a group of people who absolutely hate to be told what to do by people they completely disagree with/have nothing in common with*". It's not a pyschological disorder, as it has to do with survival. Lack of defiance is probably a psychological disorder. Historically, those tensions were resolved with wars/civil wars/insurgents/civil unrest.

[kelseyfrog]

It's definitely a reactance trait. These folks become hostile and antisocial when asked to play by the rules. Keep an eye out for it - it's much more common than you think.