The arguments against improved moderation and clear rules tend to rely heavily on hyperbole and extremism, such as trying to force the discussion into corners of unobtainable perfection or ridiculous labels ("fascism! no free speech! overreaction! it will have no effect! etc"). I'm really curious and want to ask those arguing from or toward extreme positions: why are you so opposed to a consensus approach? Isn't what we're doing here exactly what a community should be doing?

This isn't Anarchists Anonymous.