An easier solution, I suppose, would be to re-enable ratings in the Lounge.

I can't remember why we disabled them (presumably to prevent down-vote fests in opinion-based topics), but it would very quickly iron out which side of the debate the community falls on...

Or it could go the other way, just stating something funny/popular will immediately get upvoted.

Coding Horrors sees regular upvote sprees, and nobody seems to care - the current rating system is an unbounded upward curve to start with, so I'm not sure if it matters if someone trends up a little quicker.

First considered 2 things , then a suggested solution

1. One person who was the main cause of aggressive behavior, personal attacks and flaming in general on such topics is banned (Graelig), in other words the tendency to drift in to disorderliness during such topics should have dropped drastically.

2. On the flip side you can't get around the minimal token of disorderliness by banning such topics you mentioned - as people have displayed over the top ranting and have unnecessarily raised tension in replies on topic as innocent as "windows 10". In other words the adrenaline rush would always take its toll when it has to

A number of very good reasons why temporarily banning such topics might be a bad idea has been mentioned previously (including that- discussing such topics help those on the receiving end of industry bias, discrimination ..... and those on the "dishing out" side gain a self awareness and realisation of their actions, as it is well known that people's bias actions could be subconscious )

One solution which I would suggest instead of any temporary ban is

1. to take excessive pressure off the mods:- when mods get to the stage of making sensitive decisions and you are at a point where the subjective bias of mods might be an issue. You could do it the way its done in the society- Have a jury system and make a quick "jury call" (of course this means you randomly select members, perhaps up to 15 - to eliminate bias- to vote on a particular member behavior). And of course the mods are still the equivalent of the judge. This would be a swift process and not a time consuming process as it is in the real world. This will effectively take excessive pressures off the mods

2. If such "jury vote" goes against the member then the mods could either warn, warn + points deductions or suspension

Points deductions should be massive and so should be an incentive to members to behave.

We've taken a rather extreme stance on this so that we can back away from it to something more reasonable.

This is a very temporary measure, and one that we have used effectively in the past, and we'd just ask you to be patient with us a little longer. We're not trying to stifle productive discussion of these topics, and we don't want to oppress those who have been affected by these issues or support those who cause them. We will be allowing these discussions -- albeit initially in a more controlled way, and relaxing from there till we find a good balance -- within the next week or two, and we don't think a short break from those discussions will cause any harm or support the wrong people.

All of the above comments and suggestions are being taken on board, as well as those I have received privately, and even though I might be a little slow to respond all of the feedback in very welcome and I would encourage you to continue.

In the meantime, please be patient with us for just a bit longer, and enjoy all of the other discussions that are still allowed. :)

As a first step, we've adjusted the settings for the warning system so that our moderators might be more comfortable issuing warnings.

Any members receiving a warning please remember that it is just that: a warning, and not a punishment. An opportunity to to on board the feedback from our moderators and adjust your future behaviour if necessary.

For anyone wondering, our warning system allows us to apply "warning points" to a user for a number of infringements. Different infringements carry a different number of points, varying from 1 up to 6, and points expire after different periods of time ranging from 2 days to 30 days. For almost all warning types moderators are given the option of adjusting the settings for number of points as well as expiry period before submitting a warning.

If a user has more than 9 warning points simultaneously active they will automatically be suspended for a day, escalating from there to a permanent ban if they have more than 12 points simultaneously active. These numbers have been raised significantly from the previous settings (starting from 4 simultaneous points) so that moderators will be more comfortable issuing warnings without the risk that any automated punishment kicks in.

Moderators can of course elect to suspend a member who has not yet reached those totals, should their behaviour warrant it.