Meditation on Gatekeeper syndrome

Guards are often accused of being excessive, but almost never of being completely useless. A community without any moderation would quickly become cluttered. Of course, it's easy to imagine an architecture where moderation isn't so harmful. But how can this syndrome be mitigated? First of all, the problem is that moderators are worthless. If they're just a co-author, there's no problem. But in general, moderators are just as destructive to communities as bad moves by authors or site management. Paying for participation usually solves the problem of spam and haters more reliably than moderation. But it's not a universal solution. What is a guard technically? They're an intermediary between the site and the guest. Their functions can generally be described in two packages: minimal and maximal. Any guard wants to expand their functions to the maximum. Why? They're co-authors with negative contributions. A censor. Can censorship be appropriate? Hardly. Only discrimination. For example, kicking people out of a cafe who are just hanging out or working on their laptops, rather than eating, is generally acceptable, but kicking out those who just stopped in to wait for a taxi to arrive while it rained is inappropriate. Also, the issue is the personality of those who should be banned, not what they write. A common situation is that someone is simply a jerk. This jerk writes something, but they don't get banned. It's harder to tell if someone is a jerk than to identify a spammer or to allow someone with a different opinion. But moderators are supposed to ban jerks; that's their main function. This doesn't mean the person doesn't fit into the discourse or is opposing. The criterion for a jerk is malicious intent. Malicious intent is pretty easy to check. For example, someone says "waste resources" or attributes resources to themselves, like, "I'm educated, so there's no proof." Another good method for calculating this is unanswered arguments. That is, the argument is strong, but at best, he'll say, "Not a single true Scotsman," but he'll usually pass, attacking weaker positions. It's like playing games with imagination. Like playing in the yard with sticks (imaginary machine guns), you shoot, and some idiot says, "But you missed." In fair games (shooters), it's more like, "Holy shit, he hit the target." But unscrupulous idiots simply ignore things that would kill them if it were a fair fight. In the end, good moderation could simply be a night watchman with minimal functions and something like a referee. But how can this symptom be completely eliminated? Disinterest in community affairs is probably the best criterion. If a person is simply doing their job, without trying to gain more through participation, then it's ideal.