Perhaps strangely, I actually agree here. Whatever solution is selected, if that solution only ever relies on the judgement of one person (and whoever this is, he/she will have their own point of view, prejudices, personal likes and dislikes which inevitably wonât be shared by all) then it is probably not going to work as intended and will be open to abuse. Even if there is no abuse it will not be trusted by all.
For example, what if that personâs definition of a rant is not the same as what others on the forum might think a rant is? And, no, its not obvious to everybody - this forum spans lots of different cultures and countries where different standards as to what is acceptable apply. I can also see why posts/threads moved to the ârantâ category might seem like trivialising or âdismissingâ a point of view that might have been legitimately held by the poster, even if he/she expressed it in a manner considered to be overly aggressive or emotional by the ârant moderatorâ.
Forums with downvoting capability are, in a way, self correcting because the poster can see the strength of feeling against his/her post by the number of downvotes and therefore will âfeel the pressureâ to change his or her behaviour. With just one person making these decisions, mostly in a manner which is not at all transparent to the forum member affected by the decision, then feelings of resentment and victimisation will inevitably follow - whether justified or not.
Whilst I appreciate that Discourse might not provide a downvoting capability as part of its delivered functionality (why?) I think we still need to look for a âsolution of the manyâ not a âsolution of the oneâ (apologies to Star Trek fans).
Finally, I donât think we should get too worried about off-topic, or enforce it too rigidly. Half the posts on this forum are âoff topicâ in the strictest sense - but thatâs just how conversations develop naturally and ususally doesnât offend anyone.