The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Voting on posts and comments is like passing laws in a direct democracy.
Moderation is like a semi-permanent judiciary that can override laws passed by the electorate.
Moderation exists to override the short-term will of the electorate when it conflicts with the long-term central values of the community.
Or maybe, an easier option could be taking some time to carefully consider what exactly you consider to be self righteous so that a discussion can be had about it. More specificity in complaints typically yields a better response.
>More specificity in complaints typically yields a better response.
well that's exactly why people are complaining about dangs' comment. it's basically a very generic "everything here is low quality. do better." statement with little direction as to what must be corrected.
With no direction on how to improve, but with confirmation that what they're doing is wrong, people tend to get worse.
Pointing to the rules, and then calling discussion 'shallow' isn't my idea of moderation. It's a critique. Not one I disagree with necessarily, but one that I believe is nearly pointless from a moderation standpoint. It teaches nothing, gives no example of positive behaviour, and discourages people from discourse all together -- how are they to know if what they post is worth while? Should they risk reprimand to try and be thoughtful? Maybe not.
'Do better.' as life-coaching advice has never worked.
We need 'Do better X because Y is bad.', complete with examples, rather than aloof judgements.