A warrior must be sure in his action

What does the "side" of c/Conspiracies mean to you in this war, other than just "fairness and transparency"? What is the enemy side, other than violation of published rules?

Should we delete all contributions that are not objectively transparent or fair, all attacks including indirect, all obfuscations including those clearly adopted to evade censorship? That sounds easy to abuse, especially if the mod(s) should be tempted against fairness and transparency personally in the process.

Should we ban everyone whom we can quickly label unfair or opaque?

When I do mod I give transparent objective criteria and enforce them evenly and usually swiftly. I gave you evidence that I've done this with Will before and kept him restrained without needing to ban him because he honored the boundaries given after being told.

If I'm changing community rules I get community buy-in. It looks like you didn't weigh in on my attempt to assist the eventual mod(s) here with objective rules.

Oh yeah my reputation has been shot, I've been banned from ConPro and some NatSoc fora. I've modded and by God's grace maintained a prayer and Bible community with many of the same people for 5 years. I've alluded to some of the strategies I used, but it's not my job to commend myself.

There is no decisive action I can take as a contributor that is different from action anyone else can take. I've posted threads like others have. I can't force consensus but I can work to help coalesce it. We have a lot of indications here that a lot of people silently agree to not being interested in consensus-building. By God's grace I know how to redirect this with objective moderation if he wants me to. But it's not been evidenced that that's where I should go, so when you and others raised concerns with me I backed down from more direct action, the same action you are now using to check my temperature.

I downvote for a number of reasons, including personal taste, which incidentally is unrelated to moderation via objective behavioral criteria. Sometimes I upvote what I've deleted! If you have specific questions about my voting I give general principles and sometimes specific answers. I've upvoted and downvoted you when I think you've been helpful or unhelpful to advancing the forum goals; you may be hinting that you want more info, so you're free to ask. I also don't sweat what votes I get. So I'm upvoting you on this one because it's rational though I have concerns and questions.

To the degree you want to see a broader, transparent, fair community here, I trust you'll also be active in consensus-building and critical mass toward a moderation "mandate" (i.e. clear consensus). The fact that many contributors like anarchy makes it difficult to decide among everyone when competition arises; that is why clearly promulgated rules are so important. So we can keep looking forward to each other contributing more, or more wisely, to the better future.