Perhaps you will simply reply to this
Yes, I have read the formal guidelines but its the unwritten spirit of the law I'm more concerned with. For example you allow moderators powers to ban 'trolls', without specifying what a troll is. This would mean that anyone even remotely disruptive, witty, intelligent or subversive will be suspect and will be death with in a comprehensive manner. The fascist allusions are there because your reforms effectively admit defeat in the long running battle for liberty on this site, something I've been waging war on behalf for many years now only to be met with universal contempt and revulsion. I believe that if the authoritarian faction gain ascendancy on this wiki, which they are very close to, they will solidify their resources around this new institution and are already planning the great purges that lie ahead.
Surely you cannot deny this, or maybe you are just blind. After all, nobody tells the Emperor that his new clothes are actually invisible.
Can you show me where I said we would ban trolls?
Certainly; blocking for trolling/disruption. You have not specified what trolling/disruption is. So technically anyone who opposes the transient whims of the new moderating junta is at risk of permanant removal.
Blocking is not banning. Banning is removal from the site. I specifically advocated that moderators use as light a touch as possible, starting with communication and only using tools when necessary, and using temporary times. When the technological issues have been worked out and the time comes to move forward with moderators I will write more details on it. But suffice it to say that I have not given specific definitions on purpose. The idea is that we are electing people whose judgement we trust, so lets empower their judgement and adaptability to specific circumstances, rather than define a concrete algorithm that must be followed.
In spite of his usual hyperbole, MC does have a valid point — the rules moderators are to enforce could do with being specified more precisely. As I've said before, a model like WP's ArbCom (where they give structured decisions, starting with the relevant principles, then the facts of the case, then the application of the principles to the facts, then the remedies) would do well. Of course, that kind of model can't be applied in a matter of urgency, but I'd suggest any individual moderator decision should just be temporary, pending review by some formal collective process. WP does this all, not perfectly, but reasonably well; why not RW copy WP?
Oh God no. RW is not WP and should not try to be. We don't need 96% of the rules and regulations we already have, and we certainly don't need to create yet another layer of bureaucracy.
Does RW have a problem with too many rules and regulations? I don't think so. I think it does have a problem with rules and regulations which are worthless since they are often ignored in practice with no consequences. I think WP does a reasonably good job (although certainly not perfect) at having reasonable rules, and trying to enforce them fairly, openly and consistently, and RW could learn from that. At the same time, RW shouldn't copy the exact same rules as WP, because RW is a different site with different purposes.
Although I agree with Maratrean that MC actually has point here, might I point out the irony of MC demanding a rule?
No, I'm demanding the absence of a rule, I'm demanding the absence of a provision targeting individuals on the basis of their posting style. Fair enough dealing with spambots and obvious vandals etc. but in reality this site needs no rules. If people like you stopped flying off the handle and pretending to leave and never come back every 4 seconds then this site would have exactly 0 problems and would get along quite swimmingly.
For example you allow moderators powers to ban 'trolls', without specifying what a troll is.
You sound like the free market wingnuts who complain that no free market has ever failed, and when you point to somewhere that the free market did fail, you point to regulations on how the free market could function as to why it failed... yet, that free market used its money to effect the regulations that made the market fail...