BTW: no, it isn't.
Aren't you the guy who posted on this very thread that the truth doesn't always lie in the middle and used Hitler vs. USA to demonstrate? Yeah, here we go: #2528
I think the best option is no moderation at all, barring situations like those vandals who leave open marquee tags to make threads unreadable (and even that, I gather, is now automatically prevented by the software). Outperforming detractors is always more effective than shutting them up.
Still, I'll take restrained moderation and be grateful.
Forgive me for intruding, your comments weren't directed to me, however, I believe that moderatoring at least some moderatoring is really needed. Many times newbies or people just surfing through see only the outlandish or stupid posts and go on their way much to their loss.
Take Rush for instance...he thinks we are a bunch of Kooks, I'm a big dittohead. And his screener is a dittohead.
Another example is Hugh Hewitt, he recognizes FR for what we are worts and all. He lets his audience know about us often with the qualification that there are some nuts and to just recognize them for who they are.
So I say to JimRob moderators are the way to go and he should do it anyway he sees fit.
End of speech. :-)