wow, i dont usually go into this section but i must say im very surprised to hear you say this paul.
ill assume the subject of your post was mainly the comments that were posted about acito's work. the majority of posts (mine included) were not flippant, childish criticisms but included reasoning and intelligent suggestions. if they consited of "acito is shit " you would be wholey justified in suggesting a little more credibility is needed in the
argument. but for you, as the person who runs what is a very succesful and relatively un-abused site (despite the freedoms given) to come and suggest that we stiffle our criticsm, is a very worrying sign. as far as im concerned, anonymity in relation to the others in the site is what makes these discussion forums so successful. if someone can, at will, enter the site read the ideas presented in the discussions, and without social pressures add some of their ideas, what results is a more pure form of comment. (sure this system can be abused by assholes but i dont think that it is at the moment) you say yourself in the rules that we must attack the idea rather than the person. there was no personal assault on acito or anyone else, all that was done was a criticism of what i saw as painfully inadequate and insulting architecture. should someone have presented this scheme to me on my desk i would have been just as forceful in my criticism, but this is not the point. if we cannot object to this on this site you may as well shut it down.
i think sw101 has put it very well in saying that this site (and to a certain extent the idea of the internet) is about opinions, divorced from and purified of, social standing.
i really hope that this post was just a knee jerk reaction to , what you saw as a harsh critique and not a sign to come for the site. it is run extremely well and is a very valuable resource for students, architects and laypeople alike.