All right, we all know there's a certain degree of arrogance implicit in being a moderator because the job requires that one assume their interpretation of events is adequate to judge when rules have been broken. That's fair enough, because we as users can generally trust the moderators' judgement will be reasonable and somewhat close to what the average person would most likely think. But what happens when a moderator holds an opinion that is clearly outside the bounds of normalcy and tries to enforce it? Although I'd prefer this thread didn't break down into a discussion of one specific incident, for the sake of providing an example I'll point out the series of posts that inspired this thread. Here. In that JCC thread, dp4m argued that because he disagrees with the opinion that 9/11 was a government hoax, anyone who posts such an opinion is in violation of the "knowingly false" clause of the TOS. I think most of us here will agree that's rather extreme and posting a defensible opinion is nowhere near the same thing as outright libel. (And no offense meant, David; it just happened that this was the most recent event of that sort to occur. I don't mean to start DRAMA!!1 against you personally.) So. What happens when the opinion of a moderator is clearly deviating from general concensus?