I really do like this site. After I wrote the comment i later noticed this site is design to be strictly Q and A site. A discussion forum could have allowed boarder forms of communication thus less control issues.
As to the comment: It would appear one or a few people are in charge of this site and that they possess control over the site, and that there are rules that must be heeded otherwise they will be "removed".
This presents a certain dilemma. How is order and flow maintained without rules/laws and consequencial actions of exclusion, disciplne, or punishment. Are not the one who break the rules wishing to contribute to anarchy (self rule). Is public conduct an issue that falls out of the boundaries of anarchy if order is a desired aspect within an environment?
Also if one is to be a moderator ("Forum moderators, a person given special powers to enforce the rules on an Internet forum, newsgroup or blog"; wikipedia) should that task be given to one who does not particate within that media if only for the sake of appearance, conscience, and objectivity? Or could there be a bending of rules where content and free thought are allowed and seen as more important than form?
The points that I made are merely a possible observation. I believe words used could be applied by definition. Not saying that the intent or motives are not desirable, but the results are still similiar and within the boundaries of each definiton. And there is nothing on the website that would indicate otherwise that the controllers of this site are self-appointed.
And still at what scale or degree are such things acceptable? Certainly everyone here including myself would agree there are. The question is does that make it right? If it does, do we then determine to what degree they become unacceptable and in doing so what determines the acceptability within the conditions of anarchy. Is it as long as it is to our advantage, or the advantage of the majority? You see this is not far from any rules placed over people when we begin to justify the degrees by which we find acceptable. Scale does not change what a thing is, it the exactness one thing to another.
Would I change this site or do I protest here? No. To me it is acceptable because of the end results. lol But I do not think we should turn a blind eye to what it is we have here. More options would allow for more liberties. So still maybe a discussion forum could be connected to the Q and A to allow more means of expression. Maybe an answer could be the placement of questions and comments of type which then becomes more a matter of intrepatation than of possible censorship which falls within the parameters of anarchy.