Unfortunately, deletion and edits are commonly tools of censorship. This I feel was the primary concern of the original poster. IMHO Delete isn't something that should happen with computers, unless it's a redundant copy. Data and it's integrity is sacred. That's knowledge - should rack that up. Need more space? clip in another HD. Move it somewhere where it's not problematic by all means, but it's critical it remains in existence and accessible to those who would choose to seek it. In case of abusive posters, it provides for long term evidence that any individual party can review, at any time, and confirm the "correct" deciscion was reached - Such transparencies will help with faith in the moderators themselves, as commonly these are fallible, being entirely composed of the human element of the system. A large archive of decisions that most people will agree with should not do them a dis-service. With the level of fail achieved with regards to some descisions made in getting this far, it's understandable how some would want both a clearly defined level of accountability and further require review of the long term behavoural trends of those utilising elevated privliges. If someone was sane enough to of deployed a ticketing system for handling of "customer services" then this could be leveraged to additionally archive the actual procedings - Who, where, when. what, why -=- An incident log - Mod/admin opens ticket, evidences unto the abusive post, neutralises post from public view if required. Similar behaviour for ban etc. Such would make it incredibly easy to reference specific incidents, or reference groups of incidents. It'd could also at the same time open a channel of communication should the afflicted party feel it was unwarrented wherin they may argue the merits of their case.
Edits are worse. This gives rise to many potential issues. All I've seen so far clearly suggest they have been edited by the mod/admin - But it's actually trivial with that level of auth to edit the content in such a way as to not give an indication. Also, lacking any particular authentication method, there's no particular way to prove it was the claimed user that actually made the problematic post - Currently simply requiring access to hardware once used to login to the service to achieve access, which considering the practices of most users is alarming. The "best" solution I can come up with regarding such is using a system (additional to requiring authentication of the user) like PGP/GPG to sign the post. It'd be "better" in the new/edit post interface presented to the user, but it could be implimented externally/independantly and text with signiture pasted in. Citizens can make available their public keys and if they've kept the private key secure then only they can sign the post so it matches - The public nature of the public key allowing for independant confirm of authenticity. Anything changes, it'll no longer match the key - tampering undeniably evidenced.
When edits are required, by the user themselves or by those with elevated privliges, the unedited post should be still made accessible in unedited form for those who choose to seek it. Such transparencies will elevate trustability of both the moderators and the users alike as well as provide for accurate transcript/ledger.
Another issue I feel was a concern of the original poster is the apparent "finality" of the ban, with no formal appeal or approval process. I understand and respect that within the tending of duty the moderators will be required to act, sometimes with the banhammer, and to remain effective this would require to take place without a formal comittee etc. However, one person's opinion alone should not be enough to impact anothers long term use. Formal procedure should exist for cases where the afflicted are able to address the way the moderator handled the post(IMHO, they shouldn't be stepping in unless there's no other choice, and when forced to be doing so, acting with the minimal power they require to achieves - kind of like the laws of least privliges that cover sane computer use, but applied to moderation. Laws of least privliges suggest a seperate account should be used for moderation purpose, as their personal use doesn't require these privliges - also removing of the requirement to specify if the account is acting in regards to personal or positional capacity - or like the sudo system temporary privliges become granted only for the timeframe in which they are required, and autonomously drop) and as default, any ban action should instigate an investigation into the matter. This should be investigated independantly to the current mod/admin staff to prevent conflicts of interest and personal opinions from generating bias. On finding a ban was appropriate, a timeframe should be determined and where appropriate, scheduled for later review.
Inability to adhere to rules and guidelines isn't an overly desirable trait, I'm sure. However, the founding ethics would dictate that people be afforded the ability to demonstrate they have the capacity to change. If the greater number have problems with following rules, that may suggest a problem with the rules. When it's a few sparsely distributed individuals, then it possibly indicates a problem with the individual. Problems can generally be solved, commonly with logic. Efforts should be made to solve that problem, more than the symptoms it exhibits.
Ability to "work well in groups" is advantagous, but isn't essential. There's plenty of deployment senario where small groups or lone individuals are a more senible option than entire teams. People of that sort of nature can be utilised in these roles. Space is big, thusly when we (eventually) get there, there's more than enough room for everyone.
I personally would fit the model you described precisely. I have absolutely no respect for persons in authority - respect is something earned on an individual nature, not attributed by random third parties on your behalf, and just 'cause someone has standards low enough for you to pass them doesn't mean you immediately supercede my personal model. Which is based on exhibited behaviours commonly - amongst other things. I can work in groups, if I choose. But wherever possible choose not to in order to avoid inevitable interference with the task in hand when someone decides their own personality defects are a higher priority. I've been "in trouble wtih the law" - This doesn't make me an intrinsically "bad person", and honestly in a large number of cases it was some form of petty abuse of the powers granted. Sure, I've done "wrong" things - who hasn't, but nothing warrenting a prison sentence thus far and certainly nothing to cause anyone long term concern or consider ostracisation. I would have my reasons for exhibiting such behaviours, and whilst this does not excuse them it can at least provide for understanding. As for teachers... their lack of education combined with a reduced capacity to think did leave a few at significant disadvantage, and being immature this was regularly exploited for my amusement, in a few cases at the cost of their long term sanity. Just in the name of pedanticism you appear to have an errant apostrophe, btw.
Does any of that mean that I would "not make a good Asgardian" however? I'm willing to wager that everything before the previous paragraph - although you might not of agreed with every word - would of left you with the impression I'm perfectly reasonable, well balanced and demonstrate a capacity to consider and thusly provide potential for productive input.
