As the number of posters goes down, has the need to keep the board going had any influence on how things are moderated here?
If true it would be counterproductive to admit it.
Our moderation has always been aimed at making this a better place. One would certainly expect that this being a better place would result in more folks joining and staying. So to the extent that we’re motivated by wanting to keep membership up, it doesn’t actually change our moderation.
The difficulty is the rather nebulous definition of “better place” in the modern digital marketplace. There are more people seeking self approval, and confirmation of dearly held biases than there are people who want their assumptions questioned, and their fallacies corrected.
The relentless exposure of factual inaccuracies, biases in inquiries, unacknowledged assumptions, and deliberate repetition of things proven to be false is worth doing, although its worth lies not in the likelihood that those being corrected will benefit, or even pay attention. The benefit accrues slowly, and almost imperceptibly as the membership learns.
Opinions are free, and should not be controlled. Providing an unquestioning forum for them is not free, and is not protected by any part of our concept of free speech, and represent the greatest danger to the reason for coming here. Truth is its own best defense, but only so long as it is spoken boldly in the face of error, intellectual sloth, or malice.
Sadly, the Internet is a popularity contest, seldom troubled by such trivialities as accuracy, honesty, or beneficial intent.
Tris
It’s always going to take longer than you think.
I wonder if we should change to tag line to
Telling you why you’re wrong since 1973
It might at least bring in the segment who do want their current thinking questioned. It’s also pretty on-point for Cecil snark.
I would say that is more to the point of why traditional message boards like this have been fading away to things like Twitter and Facebook.
As for the OP; possibly but maybe not in the way we would think. It isn’t something purpose-driven but more a sign of how things have changed. As message boards go we’re among the AARP set now; a sort of old guard. The difference is we seem more willing to make room for the “kids” and make them welcome. Which I think speaks well to our chances for survival.
As someone who has a Facebook and Twitter account, I can say that they are very wanting in terms of any actual meaningful or sophisticated exchange of thoughts. Facebook is like 4:00 o’clock tea. People post things because they want affirmation. I give them polite or even enthusiastic affirmation, and life goes on. It’s good for keeping up with what people are doing, but it is very shallow in terms of any kind of meaningful exchange. Twitter reminds me of first grade where the kids “writing” usually consists of one to three simple sentences. “We went to Disneyland this summer. It was a lot of fun. I want to go back.”
A place like this is an entirely different and more sophisticated dimension in terms of Internet exchange.
I certainly have not moderated how I moderate. I endeavor to be a moderate moderator.
I like your moderation … moderately. 
Yeah, but sometimes you screw up and become a mondegreen, instead. Always a strange day.
So, you are the very model of a modern moderate moderator?