Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[cc]

On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:50:27 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> It's a good idea. But could you go further?

I want to go on record as completely disagreeing with every call 
for increased moderation in all capacities.  In my experience 
across numerous domains this only leads to disaster, for reasons 
it would be impossible to delve into without deep political 
discourse.  The level we have now is fine, Mike is doing a fine 
job, and as much as people like to wax poetic while 
characterizing each others' opinions and styles (for example, Our 
Holy GC Church vs Those Evil Anti-GC Apostates Whom Our Faith 
Compels Us to Wipe Out-type arguments), I don't want any of them 
deleted, even the ones that annoy me with their narrow viewpoints 
and conceited ignorance for the needs of diverse and venerated 
use cases.  Just in case my semi-ironic tone here doesn't make it 
clear, I'm vehemently against it.  It's bad.  It makes 
conversations and attitudes worse, not better, and it's not even 
a "maybe".  It does, and will.

The only time I've seen an obvious need for moderation, besides 
weight loss pill spam, is the occasional occurrences in the past 
of one or two certain users suspected of changing their usernames 
frequently to stir up doomposts with zero contribution.  A 
doompost in and of itself is not the end of the world but one 
that attempts to use deception to saturate messaging is another 
matter and deserves the X clicks.