This is a fascinating point... I hadn't looked at it this way, and I'm thankful you did, because it bears consideration. "In the multitude of counselors, there is wisdom." And the multitudes have higher probability of bringing to light different points of view from their own experience. I see that as very valuable, and your post is a case in point.

At the same time, in my experience, the gradual homogenization of opinions within a specific forum subculture has never driven me away, even if I disagree. What drives me to "move on" is an over abundance of snide, snarky, hateful, and hurtful remarks that attack the person instead of addressing the point or the issue. There's always going to be some of that here and there, but when it runs rampant, I move on.

I want to believe that in forums where there is a simple mechanism for optionally reviewing responses, there is some sense of accountability for what is spewed, and I want to believe this leads people to take more responsibility for what they say... leading to that self moderated pause before pressing "Enter."

But I can't say that I have any real evidence of this that rises to the level of fact. Only my perceptions. And I can't say I perceived the monoculture you described as a gate closure to some people. But now that you've brought it up, it makes reasonable sense.

Incidentally, this very discussion exemplifies what can be really great about forums in their highest and best use... the topic categorized discussion and sharing of ideas in civil discourse. And we didn't need a post rating system to get this done. I think I care more about continuing the conversation rather than whatever the outcome may be that comes of it.

At the same time, on another thread in the Delta Forum (which I've noticed is ripe with fractiousness) an FT member took some time to post a diatribe on the changes to Delta's FF program, but rather than pure vitriol, the member creatively couched it in the cultural idiom of an old televised soliloquy. I didn't read every line, but I thought the idea was clever. Yet I was shocked at some of the sharp tongued responses. I really wanted to check a box that said "Not Nice" for a couple of those responses, but that wouldn't be very nice either.

So instead, I would have liked to have patted the original poster on the back with an "approval" check box. None existed, so I made a post saying that I appreciated the cleverness of the effort, whether in agreement or not. I think that fits squarely into what exelincfc said immediately above... where the optional rating of posts conveys support without making a whole post to do so.

There are thought provoking points being made on all sides of this issue here.