While it has always been something of an issue here, the fact that some people are criticized for speaking in favor of the JC administration or defending someone in it has become more noticeable. Is there something inherently wrong or undesirable about agreeing with the administration (either completely or in part)? Several times in recent threads, I've seen posts derided for seemingly no other reason than because they expressed agreement with something the administration has (or has not) done, or about the actions of a particular moderator. Is there an unspoken or undefined level of experience on the JC needed to agree with the agree with the administration, or perhaps a certain way of phrasing things? I'm interested in discussing this and perhaps seeing if we can end or reduce the occurance of people being criticized for agreeing with the administration.