My guess is that the new forum will initially have more than its share of posters who enjoy irritating their readers. IMHO that sort of behavior does not belong on FT, except that it may be tolerated in the free-fire zone of OMNI/PR. Call that restricting conversation if you will. I call it restricting disruption, and it's done mostly by teaching members how to post well.
A good post to FT should be informative, useful, or funny. Too many disruptive posters grossly overestimate how funny their posts are. My personal rule of thumb is that if you are going to post something that would otherwise be disruptive, it needs to be laugh out loud funny. If the target of your humor nevertheless laughs at it, you have a winner.
I think you misinterpreted
DeaconFlyer's post. He was responding to
seanthepilot who basically told folk that if they didn't like it to not go there (and called those FTers the peanut gallery besides
), which implied they couldn't participate in conversations re: the forum or participate in it.
Based on
mia's post on what they've already had to deal w/ re: posts re: the bloggers, I'd say those have gone beyond what is found in other forums, even some that are snarky. So I don't agree w/
sean that they're going to be tougher than other forums, but that they have experience that shows some FTers go beyond TOS & one thread they've dealt with has shown vile behavior/posts. I'd be very surprised if
sean approved of FTers attacking a blogger's sexuality vs. the content of the blog.
While I voted no against this forum, now that it has been approved I hope it goes well & I know the CommunityDirector & others are working to expand the remit a bit to make it a more valuable resource. And it might be a bit wild west in the beginning, but I have hope that things will settle down as time goes on.
Your post is re: what you'd like to see FT posts be in general, which of course is something to strive for but which we know in reality is not always the case.
Cheers.