There needs to be less censoring in the poll section of DDO

To start the debate I would like to ask a question. Who of the voters here thinks it should be the responsibility of someone else to decide for us what we should read, to decide for us what we should learn? This is to give the responsibility of thinking for ourselves over to someone else. It is the first steep down a dark path that only leads to totalitarianism and dictatorship. To control the people you must first control the information. So hands up anyone here who thinks it should be the decision of someone else to decide what knowledge other people should know, and if anyone feels foolish enough to say I, then I think you are the poorer. DDO is I thought when I signed up a place to have thoughts and ideas challenged, to be taught not to think the way we have always been told to think. But clearly my opponent feels otherwise, only the moderators version of what is appropriate may be told, only the moderators idea's of what is not offencive may be told. And if we are to challenge them then it is usually too late, the poll has been removed and there is nothing we the users, the lifeblood of the website can do about it. Where is the fairness in that, the system is corrupt and broken, and my opponent is perfectly ok to go along as though nothing is wrong. However that's not quite true imabench has been an advocate for my side previously; (1) did a rather poor job I will admit as she was humiliated in defeat by her opponent, but nonetheless the hypocrisy is clear: "site rules SHOULDNT be more strictly enforced", "DDO is conducted in a way where when someone's profanity does become a problem, then moderators can address these instances on a case by case instance" (which is a form of less censorship), "people with mod powers can become immune to other mods, they could censor people they dont like and opinions that they dont agree with, etc", "Youre proposing massive censorship on anything that you deem an insult". These are just a few examples of what my opponent has previously said on the issue of censorship. Once an advocate for the side of truth and justice (in the words of George Gallow in possibly the most famous debate of our time when referring to his opponent "the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug") my opponent has either betrayed herself or is a major hypocrite. So I have to ask which one is it imabench? Are you for or against censorship? And if you the humble voters side with imabench she is inviting you to be hypocrites and liars as well. Often in the poll section one may post a comment and without a reason it is 'submitted for moderation' which never actually get's moderated. One time my comment was submitted for moderation and the only change I had to make was putting a question mark at the end of it, what is the point of this mindless time wasting censorship? Another frequent visitor of the poll section is user TBR who has also vented frustration towards the moderators of the unfair inconsistent moderation of the poll section when three of his polls were removed which did not breach any ToU's Example 1) lady chatterley's lover, Example 2) Classic art, Example 3) and a picture of an assault rifle, he debated with the moderator with reasoning and logic, but her word was final she was the final authority the supreme leader on the matter and cannot be challenged. "It should be noted though that it is the USERS that are the commodity, not the moderators. The site owners want more eyes on advertisement, not pleasing the moderators" - TBR (2), (Don't be surprised if reference 2 get's 'censored' though). Thus if we are to increase the number of user that visit the site then perhaps the users should have a say, maybe a community driven moderation, like the jury system, if censorship must take place, instead of the current obviously floored system where censorship is rife and completely one sided. This is my opening argument. Thank you. source 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.debate.org...