[Jaydelart]

JF seems like it's in a good state right now.
There are still moments when people clash heads, but that's generally the nature of discussion.

Regarding one of the suggestions made earlier...
It would be a waste of time and effort trying to decipher or even reword members' conveyed thoughts. A moderator would have to rely on their own interpretation of what is being said, which would lower it's accuracy significantly... especially if/when a large volatile debate occurs.

As for the issue of moderation being brought up, I don't think it's an "issue" at all -- though, I respect the attempt to think outside the box.

It's a considerably broad subject, and I'm probably going about it the wrong way, but ~
The way I see it, without moderation there are two alternative concepts: In this case, they are a virtual lack of life and a proneness to extremism. And, considering how the former defeats the purpose of even having a forum, the latter seems to be the only route left to imply..... And, frankly, when is extremism ever genuinely a good thing in the end? Moderation seems like the most forgiving island out of the three.

It was said that to censor language is to censor the mind.
That would suggest the significance of words and the affects they can have on people, leading me to address question of whether people can manipulate words to hurt people... which they can and do.
If such is the case, and a person is liable to being hurt by words, isn't it within the members' best interest if some form of language boundaries are implemented?

In my opinion, if anyone's to blame for the wrath of censorship, it's the people who decide to exploit it's absence... not the mods; not the rules.