TRTL, that's simple: it's the difference between "You're a stupid idiot", and "That's a stupid, idiotic argument, because of X, Y & Z".
I've never held back in criticising others' arguments, attitudes or opinions, but I like to think I've generally managed to avoid ever directly insulting the poster (except perhaps one or twice, largely in jest).

GrahamY: "CJ Morgan is complaining about inaction on my part. My response to that is that I need to be sure I'm not penalising someone who is operating within the rules, so we need to check, and those checks may take some time."

Graham, I'm not really complaining about your inaction, rather I'm disappointed that you've been unable to act for the reasons you state. As I outlined in my email to you, the way that I think he's doing it would be very difficult to detect if you're relying on IP addresses to identify people with multiple accounts.

I have every faith that you're working on it, and in that particular case he seems to have hoist himself well and truly on his own petard anyway :)

Graham said, "On top of that, experience suggests that without limits the forum would quickly degenerate. When we started discussion threads on OLO there were no limits. It quickly got out of control. There was a large number of posts, but it wasn't a pleasant place to go so the quality wasn't high and there was a problem with abuse. So we adopted the posting rules and applied them via programming rules."

So by saying things degenerated I take it you mean posters became abusive. That seems to be the way things go online unfortunately. People are often very much more inclined to get aggro on line than in face to face situations. A virtual identity is the refuge of the spineless bully. There's a lot out there and it's so easy to be abusive when the only response will be another virtual insult.

I was one of the posters who claimed a restriction of freedom of speech was the result of a restriction on posting. I stand by that comment, however it's not a restrction on freedom of speech in the commonly used way. But if your experience with running this forum has lead you to believe that a limit on posting results in a better, more civil, more manageable forum then well and good. It's unfortunate that the virtual world has meant so many closet hoons, wimps and bullies have made their existence so significantly felt.

Thanks for those comments CJ. I think that in terms of forum quality this one does quite well. That's partly the result of the rules, but mainly a result of the community that's built itself around the forum. I'll have a further think about expanding the number of posts allowable on article threads.

We're just making some adjustments to the forum to make pages load more quickly, which you may have noticed. One other thing I'd like to do is add a character counter to the entry box so that you know when you're up against your word limit.

1)

Given that this thread has now covered all aspects of posting, I put my final comments here.

I would like to have posted yesterday, but the nature of my work can get me called away suddenly, and that happened.

So; it was the day before yesterday that I was suspended for 24 hours.

I have said here that I 'LOATHE' restrictions. Too right! But I acknowledge the need for them. That view hasn't changed. However, I baulk at the reasons for my suspension.

Given that a post of mine was deleted; and WAS given as the reason for the suspension I feel somewhat justifiably aggrieved !It is inappropriate for me to reprint it here.But I CAN refer to the substance of it.

It highlights how easy it is for a poster to get a post removed and a suspension applied.

I objected to a statement that asserts that >those on the Left of political thought are responsible for the mass killings of millions because of their political beliefs<!

I questioned the intelligence of the poster who would write such rubbish. I WOULD DO IT AGAIN. The post was recommended for deletion. That is upheld. It's that simple??

SO......; a statement viz: > < is NOT offensive; calling its author an u-little-t IS!!

Online Opinion is THE best forum in Australia for intelligent discussion. Without question. It's moderation is low-key (?), AND I have NEVER encountered a more approachable site owner than Graham Young

2)

What I do object strongly to is the capacity of an INDIVIDUAL (GY; I wish you had an italics facility!) being so empowered thus, can get a post removed that he/she does not like!

I remind the reader that it was the post referred to that was given as the reason for the suspension, NOT the fact that more than one member of OLO was none too pleased with me!

What is this all about? We are adults for Godssakes! Discussion on radio/phone/personal has layers. Discussion/frustration/irritation/arguments/rows/anger. That IS life.

I have been called: troll/cretin/hormonal/' ugly wimmin' /' lift yer frock up luvvie' . Have I left any out? I would NEVER report this. It won't kill me!! It is levelled by those for whom I have little respect (and v/v!), so what? IF I post strongly, and I do; then I must take the consequences ( this simple fact being completely lost by one intellectually challenged individual...).

I have asked for two posts to be deleted. One I felt to be overtly racist (though this is ALSO in the eye of the beholder); ... and the sock puppet.

Has OLO such a frail sensitive structure that one cannot make the comment I did without being reported/suspended? Surely not?

Why has online discussion allowed the jargon words: flaming/troll/...sock puppet...
What do they REALLY mean? With the exception of ''sock puppet '' '(NOTHING can justify the adopting of duel or multi identities to support ones own views and/or attack others. I do NOT include in this a poster who has declared a duel identity and does NOT use it as a tool of attack).