As a hanger on in these parts since the pre-scoop days [though I never bothered to register until election night 2004] I've pretty much seen the gamut of discussion. What fascinates me, from my earliest days, through the period of avid participation, to the alternating ennui & gobsmacking humor I now derive reading the site, is that constant thread - et tu moderation?
Over the 8 years this site has existed, nothing has been more popular than the discussion of how to moderate it.
In fact, it is the only discussion that has ever really happened here among the long time contributors - a fine tradition they have repeatedly reiterated upon new users - rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.
The 'beautiful people' are more invested in the manner of discussion than the discussion itself. Communication is an avenue to power. So the manner in which the discussion is held & the crafted outcome of that discussion are extremely important.
Prose, repartee, ideas falling within acceptable limits are celebrated. Sometimes even ideas slightly outside the lines... Rules get made and sometimes those in the community circle break them, but get let back in.
The problem is, the focus is on the models & not the discussion.
I actually think this has nothing to do with Markos, though, many times over the years he has quite clearly set out his blacklists... It is rather a grand experiment in the abuse of power by the various groups who think they have a constituency.
It's rather like politics, in which most people on this site have an affirmative belief.
I don't think it ironic that moderation is the primary concern of an 8 year old political blog, rather it is 'politics' as an Aristotelian category manifest. Politics, as they are practiced, are ontological - reason is epistemological.
So reason is ushered out the door & the sense of 'expressing the will of a community' prevails.