Disabled Rage

It's your friendly but indecisive moderator here, and I'd like to get input on exactly how much moderation it makes sense for me to be doing.

At the moment, membership is open to all, individual posts do not require moderator approval, and all posts default to being public. (The ability to post is restricted to comm members, though I'm not sure there's really a point to that given that anyone can join.)

I'm reluctant to moderate membership, and I'm really, really reluctant to moderate individual posts. The point of the comm is rage: fury, frustration, god knows intemperate and expletive-filled language, even overreaction and irrationality – all of that is entirely appropriate here. Given that, if I were to start moderating either membership or posts, it would be with a liberal approval policy: I'd default to approving everything, unless I had some easily discoverable reason (a quick skim of the person's recent posts, say) to believe I was dealing with a blatant troll. The problem with even a liberal policy, though, is the lag it would create between the time of submission and the time of posting: when you need to vent, you need to vent right then, not after your post has made it through a moderation queue.

I don't have strong views about whether posts should be public or readable only by members. On the one hand, public posts may make it easier for people who need the comm to find it; on the other, public posts may make it easier for people the comm doesn't need to find it. More importantly, people may feel more comfortable if they know they're ranting in a closed and filtered forum.

It's been a long time since I've been in a flame war, though, so perhaps I'm being naive about the likelihood of trolling. Input, I need input! So, radio buttons: