Thanks for the confirmation, Jeremy. That is the way I like things.
And the push I needed to bail on TiddlyTalk completely.
Re TiddlyTalk, I don't know which is worse: that people's posts can be edited by moderators, or that there is no clear "Terms of Use" or other indicator that posts can be edited by moderators. I recommend that TiddlyTalk make it very clear that moderators can and do edit posts, and make it very clear what the intent and related policies are.
BTW, it isn't about trust. Sure I trust the moderators. I also trust that to err is human. We are human
An analogy:
Jack arrives at the pub with two black eyes, and the lads ask: "What's with the black eyes?"
Jack points at his left one and says: "I was at the concert in the park last night. In front of me is a lady in a summer dress, and she has a serious wedgie, the dress right up the crack of the bum and it looks ridiculously uncomfortable. So I decided to help her out by gently tugging on the dress at bum level to remove the wedgie. That's when she turned around and punched me right in the left eye."
The lads: "Oh man. You moron. Why the right black eye?"
Jack: "When I came to, I realized that I had really upset the lady, and I felt awful about it. So after I got up off the ground, I stuck out these three fingers with my hand like so, and poked the dress back in."
The intentions may be good, but are they appropriate?
Just because one can do something, should one really do it?
And if you have given yourself the right to do something, should that right be very well indicated and should there be an opportunity for consent? (i.e. if the user does not give consent, then user cannot join.)
Something like that.