I guess I just think that unless the post is particularly accusatory / judgemental / hostile etc then I really wouldn't complain about it.

How come? Well, if I'm not particularly happy with something that someone has said, I suppose it would be more direct for me to talk to them myself. For example, if I'm worried that the poster was implying something that I didn't think was very charitable then I might say how I interpreted and ask them if that was what they intended to convey. Quite often hurts can be based on mis-understandings.

Alternatively I could complain to admin and hope that they... What? Delete the post? Delete the thread? Lock the thread? If I complain and that happens then I'm more likely to complain again next time (reinforced behaviours tend to increase in frequency). And of course intermittent schedules are the hardest to extinguish... And of course intermittent schedules have the longest extinction burst...

Something to bear in mind is all. It isn't to imply that people don't have minds of their own. The behaviourist law tends to show that people with minds of their own conform to the law. How come? Well... Attention is limited and the line of least resistence is in accordance with the law.

There are individuals (not moderators) who come to think they have immense power on the boards to decide who will be banned and who will not. Do they?

Just something to bear in mind about the current system is all.

One might wonder how much Bob's boards are going the same way with his 'report this post' feature and with his inconsistent moderating (such that gg gets a PBC for bypassing autoasterisking but muffled doesn't for doing exactly the same thing - while knowing full well what she was doing - over on writing...)