guildwars2guru's moderation is fairly strict, but I mostly agree with it. They still have pretty open discussion about the game. But that moderation does give the boards an impression of sterility and 'serious business only', and it still has its share of less than friendly and respectful posters. I can't say if they go too far, not far enough, or if they have it about as good as anyone can hope for. Then again, it's not a simple one-dimensional scale; they can perhaps lighten up on some aspects while becoming more strict on others.
Though it's fairly common to find people insisting that the moderation on guildwars2guru is draconian and disallows for free discussion of the game. I'm worried similar accusations would hairy ArenaNet's boards, and end up hurting their public image.
Were most (or any) of those arguments claiming the moderation was draconian worded in a well thought out and intellectual way?
Not that I recall, but neither were they particularly poor either. They're mostly just rather vague about what happened. I'm always skeptical of "The moderator was unfair" kind of things. But whether the claims are valid or not is besides the point, which is that if such claims are common enough it will hurt ArenaNet's public image.
Well, that's disappointing. A sterile community is a bad community, and unfortunately, it encourages players to have a thin skin. Some responsibility should put into the hands of the playerbase.
Having effective moderation doesn't necessarily lead to a sterile community. As for members of the community getting "thin skin," I'm not of the line of thought putting up with obnoxious people somehow makes one a better person, nor do obnoxious members somehow make a community better.
As for responsibility, no one's suggesting that it lies entirely with the moderators. In the same thread, one of the other ArenaNet community managers said:
"Members of a community help set the tone for what that community will be like. Moderators can help guide that tone, of course."