This. If Kirk has any actual positive quality, I’d say that he’s highly adaptable and skilled at ‘thinking on his feet’. This gets him out of a whole lot of trouble and lets him play fast and loose with his actions as Captain, but it also means he gets himself into a lot of trouble that a more strategic, less impulsive officer would have avoided in the first place.

It’s telling, in my opinion, that the very first thing Starfleet does as soon as the Enterprise gets back home is rotate him off of starship command and give him an administrative position where his decisions can be reviewed, rather than assigning him on a new mission. He only manages to get himself back in command when V’ger is heading straight for Earth, and Starfleet is in “throw the kitchen sink at it” mode.

It is unacceptable that Babylon 5 is not on this list. It was rare, at the time, for shows to have a multi-season story arc with character development planned from the start. JMS got his seasons, though, and used them beautifully. Every single episode, even those that don’t contribute to the main storyline advancing, either show a character developing or build the foundations for that development.

FMA:B is up there on “shows I wish I could forget just so I can watch it for the first time again”, and so much of it has is how many characters’ final moments (re)define them. Tossup for me between:

This. It says, “I acknowledge you are upset, and accept blame.”

Many of your examples of “bad” moderation are more about site administration (including use of tech tools and appeals) than the degree of moderation. Like, yes - Reddit’s moderation ecosystem, particularly in large subreddits, is fundamentally broken. Powermods, lack of accountability, malfunctioning digital filters, mods who lack of options for alternatives (or, where those alternatives exist, they are frequently overwhelmingly cesspools)… it’s got issues. But this isn’t about “more” or “less” moderation; it’s about poorly-applied controls in the first place.

I’m not so sure Lemmy is so “perfect” either. I’ve seen plenty of moderation based on political views rather than actual misbehavior here, and conversely plenty of actual hatred and bigotry getting a pass because those in charge of a give space viewed it as aimed at the “correct” people. Likewise, while the Fediverse allegedly lets parallel communities develop, in reality it can be hard to overcome the inertia of people moving towards a popular community, unless the mods/staff there really screw up.

Okay, so what’s the actual right amount in a given community?

My admittedly cop-out answer is “That depends on the community”. There were some where extremely rigidly-enforced rules - particularly about quality or contents of answers or posts - helped to ensure communities retained a high degree of quality and reliability in what was posted. But others might want a more casual, relaxed space to goof around in - including in ways that others might not like - which require looser rules.

And that’s really the rub: There’s no absolute right answer. We can point to lots of wrong answers, but getting it right is a complex journey for each space. My personal focus is that whatever level is agreed on, it must be fairly applied for all users. You cannot be passing one user’s slipup and coming down hard another. Be fair.

…and in the end, there will be people who simply cannot follow the rules, no matter how clearly they are explained.