On several occasions, moderators have suspended an account (your's truly) for making mere questionable comments or providing answers that are not with convention. Now, SE has a voting model, yes? What is the legitimacy for scolding other users when it can only result in the inbreeding of already established and perhaps all-too-conventional practices? And then to suspend them, as if the threat to the eyes of ears of other PhDs is of such enormity, that a moderator must be called in to take the helm and whisk the offenders out of the room.
Is it the case that A.SE is a place where people can get answers that have already been asked somewhere within Academe and here provided a forum for publishing such answers online, or is it also the place for developing different types of rapport, for developing best practices in academia which are not perhaps yet universally agreed upon, and otherwise for keeping a bevy of PhDs in line by online (i.e. harmless) banter?
By that last question I mean, to make a place where the Doctors can come and push each other a little rather than merely reinforce each other at their weakest points, which seems to be where moderation is taking the site. For there hardly is any other place within Academe or on the Internet itself to cross-fertilize standards of conduct across fields or across Universities themselves.
So the question is: When is moderation here done by actual wisened masters of the original ideals of Academa, rather than poseurs (that while having all the apparent credentials, act like children throwing a tantrum just because they still have their bit of power to wield)?