If there's 78 posts in a row between two people calling each other ****s it does tend to have some effect on people wanting to have the original conversation. That's the kind of derail I mean, fwiw. I don't mean the usual tendency for threads to meander, which I think is fine and good and welcome.

Of course, someone could point out that over-moderating threads to keep them on topic also tends to have an effect on the original conversation too, a point I fully concede.

Right but they aren't prevented from having the original conversation. If there were 78 posts in a row between two people having a civil but otherwise meandering conversation it would have some effect on those wanting to have the original conversation but they still wouldn't be prevented from having it.

derails like that should be split out into their own thread. If someone is consistently disruptive contain them in their own thread (common in OOT/SE) or ban them. Allowing personal attacks does not mean a complete lack of moderation.

'Prevented' isn't the right word but in practice it does make it too much effort. I too agree about over modding and we continue to modify the way we mod to minimise problems. The intent to prevent the derails remains the same so it's mostly a matter if how best to do it.

Right. For example it is quite problematic that everyone hates you and your vision for the forum.

I mean I agree that it doesn't literally prevent the more substantive conversation, it's not a thing that occurs of logical necessity. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an observably negative impact. I can't substantiate that claim with some kind of study but I've been posting on internet forums for a long time and it seems pretty obvious to me. People will tend -- to some extent -- to modify their posting habits to match the environment. A forum where most of the posting is no-content sniping will encourage more of the same, and vice-versa.

But, as I also said, I don't think it's my job to stand in the way of what the majority wants. Something something consent of the governed or whatever.

Fair enough. I think what you wrote here is similar in spirit to the proposal I put forward in #21 (my 1b)

absolutely.

I miss the peak oil thread.

Containment threads for posters were not particularly popular - JJ had a pole and it was close. It's a very bad idea imo because the threads turn into attempts to get posters contained or banned.

The environment matters as you say. Wher we disagree a bit is in looking back too much to the results of the previous environment. Yes we should take it into account - that's why we had the !!! threads but the forum also has to look fowards and create a different environment.

Right. But with chez's modding style you run into weird situations where he claims a post was so objectionable that it had to be deleted, but the perpetrator got like a warning or a "time out" from the thread. If a post is so objectionable that it breaks site wide decency rules and must immediately be deleted it's time for the banhammer.

That's not how chez rolls though.

Right, I'm afraid to bump that thread because it can't function without personal attacks.

Indeed. Banning regulars is something we should be most reluctant to do imo. Deleting a post is a much much lower bar than a ban

I don't think there's any reason to give the benefit of the doubt, so let's just lay it out that the reason chezlaw deletes posts, even posts that don't earn timeouts or bans, is so he can lie about their contents later.

why? The people who post here liked personal attacks in all threads. Why do you think that needed to change?

Whoa, you are acting like you are likable.

This is similar to 13ball's post earlier. I think it's a perfectly legitimate point to raise but I've avoided it so far only because I prefer having one can of worms open at a time.

There's always been an accommodation for those who wanted to continue with personal attacks until very recently (which were discussing in this thread, it's not being ignored). There's no good reason why those who want to have threads where personal attacks are allowed, need to have personal attacks allowed in all threads - is there?

Most of the people who participated in that thread left after chez turned this into a playground for white supremacists. Jiggs is still around, but he won't preform without an audience, and we aren't allowed to laugh at him. It's like a zoo where they kick you out if you laugh at the poo-flinging monkey.

Having special rules for certain threads is dumb and overly complicated the rules

So there's some objection to the rules being too complicated

Anything else?

You also never addressed why you felt the need to get rid of a popular rule in the first place

I didn't. PU literally died. This is a new forum with a different aim to PU - that meant a new set of rules.

I saw a need to meet some of the demand left behind by the demise of PU which the !!! Threads met. There was also a demand for hate speech which was not going to be met. In addition there's provision of threads for people from across the political spectrum who want to stay on topic.

I don't think the "PU died" line really works as an explanation, even if it's true in a sense. It's almost entirely the same posters as it was before, and it's obvious why they would not see the change as some kind of natural event that they should just accept without comment.

But, fundamentally I guess I would say the problem is the various moderation changes this space has gone through have never involved enough input from the actual posters. I don't blame you (Chez) for doing what you did with it. You were handed the forum and told to do what you wanted. And then you invited me and I tried to do more or less the same thing :P

But it's one thing to say "oh this is a totally different forum", and another thing to get the people who want to post in the forum to buy into it.

What are you talking about "literally died". All the same threads are here. Most are still open. It's the same forum renamed.