I believe the site was over-moderated.
I don't believe it is anymore.
Regarding consistency... look at society as a whole. It's incredibly hard to issue black and white consistency to citizens, or in our world forum members.
We have different police, different judges, different juries in society who can come to different conclusions when presented with seemingly similar cases.
Here, we have different moderators, whose interpretation of rules is and will always be shaded by their personalities and their style.
We have posters who are more adept at intelligent debate than others, and who are better are veiling their thoughts than others.
There are definitely inconsistencies, but what I think needs to be realised is that these are natural and not created. Having been a heavy poster, then a moderator, and now a far less frequent poster, I understand the frustration in a lack of complete consistency but I also understand why it's there.
It will always exist. You can change the moderators. You can change the posters. You can change the rules.
The combination of variables will always introduce different approaches to seemingly similar problem.
Historically there have been posts that imply Moderators do stuff on a whim, or without consultation. Can I say that nothing could be further from the truth. The amount of discussion and attempts and applying all rules consistently was the majority of moderator workload. I think more often than not the mods did, do, and will do a great job in translating something that is not clear cut into something that can be applied.
Why is the site more quiet?
I think because we're winning. The 'I Told you so' and 'I know better' factor in the land of internet-forum-ego is almighty.
And I still hate Talking Players.
