I, for one, do not think that is an option... I was just feeling out if you thought that part of his argument was invalid.Yes. It is a legitimate concern. I don't dispute that. The potential for censorship (or the threat of censorship) exists. The suggestion that censorship has been "imposed" or members have been "forced" to self-censor is where my disagreement lies. It has not.
The appropriateness of an administrator trying to influence the direction of the forum (no matter how well-intentioned it may be) is a legitimate question. I don't dispute that. Whether my influence is harmful (for the purposes of free speech or productive discussion) is another topic. I don't think it is.
If my participation is harmful, I previously asked what should be the remedy?
Your suggestion of using an alias doesn't really change anything. The potential for censorship exists just the same. The only difference is that forum members would not know who is behind the alias. Furthermore, my influence should be transparent to everyone and not done in secret.
The logical remedy would be for me to restrict/eliminate my participation to influence the direction of the forum or otherwise promote my vision for the forum.
As a side note, it's interesting how my questioning of the appropriateness of personal attacks in facilitating productive discussion has been recast into the appropriateness of my questioning the inappropriateness of personal attacks in facilitating productive discussion.
The funny part is I was certain cbs WAS your alias- your secret outlet to tell people to eat a dick. I am not so sure as of late.