First I agree with Aspx that moderation is a thankless job, and that you are doing it well. The curse or blessing of a good referee is that the better he is the less visible he is. When a referee becomes the focus of attention (like let's say the ex president) it means he fails at the job.

So you can be assured that my reservations and doubts have nothing to do with you. I can give examples of abuses and errors of moderation done here, and I expect you would agree with me, at least for those specific cases.

I do not think that it is necessary, because the conflict between the concepts of forums and moderation is natural and unavoidable.

What makes a forum best is free speech and opening to the widest possible range of subjects and points of view.

Moderation is a big plus for highly technical forums where the moderator is an expert who can decide what the valid knowledge is as opposed to incorrect opinions.

Normally any forum should have rules of conduct which are usually the first thing you read before joining. When the rules of conduct are sensible and represent the shared values of the members you do not need moderators just to enforce them, because any member or any other member who will notice infractions will complain and enforce the shared values. You need an admin like yourself to implement the rules, and this is a job you do very well.

However the way this site started was different. You had subject admins having administrative powers for instance in the lobby, and I did have the case of an abusive one threatening me "Can't you see that my name is in green?"

This was corrected, and my reservations nowadays are more in principle. If you are libertarian, which I am, choosing a free market over a planned economy which btw becomes more and more fashionable, is consistent with seeing a system with a minimum number of rules as being superior.

What about the argument that the Buzz is dedicated to Female Domination and that we are speaking of real life professions that can be affected?

I am sympathetic to it, I hope you do not see my reticence as asking for license to attack and destroy. The conceptual problem with it is even if you buy the argument, what can you hope to achieve?

If somebody wants to attack a mistress there are lots of different places where he or she can do that. If you want to be able to defend her the more influence you have the better the chance to do it.

So to some extent you have a choice, do you want to be a sanctuary or do you want to be a popular site?