"* Debates bans, warnings, Game Master or moderator actions."
I think some posters are confused about this part of the guide. We all know that debating specific decisions and specific actions by Game Masters is out of bounds. For example, let's say I made a petition and a Game Master answered it. I should not and must not make a post about why I think the specific GM in question did the wrong thing in the particular situation. Also, I can't make posts talking about which GMs I dislike.
However, is it OK for players to make recommendations for changes to the GM handbook to the extent protocol is known to them? Conversations like these have a precedent of being tolerated by moderators. Discussions about general GM protocols are fundamentally different from discussions on how specific GMs have interpreted or acted on rules and petitions.
As of right now, the forum guidelines aren't clear enough to distinguish between these two very different kinds of discussions. The consequence is that we often have discussions on the forum that are "borderline inappropriate" since many people are not exactly certain where the line should be drawn. It is possible that the moderators themselves are not sure where they want to draw the line, and so they want to empower themselves with the ability to exercise discretion. This is entirely appropriate.
Still, I think it's worth while to look at anything in the rules that is ambiguous, and I think this section of the posting guide is more ambiguous than it needs to be. It's possible it's fine as it is, however I think it might be of value to be more specific. Thank you for taking the time to read through my post. Everything written here is merely my opinion and I'm very open to people thinking my opinions are wrong.
