I hadn't followed this article criticising Scott Allen or the circumstances surrounding his resignation. It seems to be going rather too far as a response.
With regard to moderation, it's always struck me that moderators often go after the wrong thing, or put another way, don't go after the right thing.
When articles are published a variety of posts appear saying 'X writer is foolish, this is worthless nonsense', followed by reasons why they disagree with article. But yet these posts are seldom moderated: it's as if the Roar thinks it's ok for their writers to be bashed as well as have their arguments criticised.
The problem about this is that it encourages a culture where posters in addition to giving their arguments against an article think it's ok to throw in 'this is worthless, pointless even to read' at the beginning. I think the Roar should not clamp down on disagreement with articles or strength of criticism, but on the bashing that is normally allowed to accompany it i.e. restrict such posts to the arguments themselves.
Secondly, the Roar is often seduced in moderating by majority opinion, as if the more people think something is right or wrong the truer it must be. The first issue is that majority opinion is highly factional, and often enforces a thought policing and crushing of opinion that opposes it, while pretending to complain against something else. If a few people complain about a post, the moderator should realise that they may simply disagree with it and prefer to see it silenced. The more people support one side of an argument or cause, the more emboldened and aggressive they are too, and most dangerous to a site that wishes to provide a pluarilty of opinions including the unorthodox.
I feel that it would be better, and I apply this to retired writers on here Greg Russell and Paul Cully as well as Scott Allen, if instead of going from writing almost every week to not writing at all, they simply reduced how often they produced articles.
An article every few weeks, whenever there was the interest to do it or say before/after the international stage of the season, a tour, a final, would give the opportunity to say something general which revealed the key to the state of affairs in the game or for a team as a whole, or express some personal favourite idea or subject.
But the everything or nothing involvement is more extreme than necessary.
Maybe the middle ground is always the hardest to achieve.
Who knows what would have happened Hard Data, maybe even further up the rankings, very unlikely the slide that ensued.