Back on the subject of the discussion, I think I'm mostly on board with what you're getting at, Ryan, but the point I made earlier about telling someone to **** off and getting infracted still doesn't seem to have been addressed, or if it was, I'm not quite getting it.
Let me pose a few hypotheticals to see how much I'm on the same wavelength as you:
Scenario 1: Two random community members, A and B, have a debate about something, it gets lively, but they don't start insulting each other and nobody else joins in. Someone else, C, brings up another topic, and everyone else in the thread moves on to that. Obviously this is not a problem.
Scenario 2: A modeler (A) and another community member (B) get into a debate about, say, the use of certain details on models. They have different perspectives on the application of those details, but it seems like A and B aren't actually communicating clearly on the same terms. B goes after the subject persistently because they feel they're not being understood--not that they're expecting A to agree, but just to understand B's point at all. Three others, call them C, D, and E, jump in to help explain. This continues for a little while.
As I'm understanding it, that would not be a problem under Rule 4 at that point because it's not actually a dogpile, but rather a legitimate attempt to bridge a miscommunication. It might warrant close monitoring because it could end up becoming a problem very quickly, like if B, C, D, and E keep going after A has expressed an unwillingness to continue the conversation, but it's not one yet.
Scenario 3: Same facts as Scenario 2, except this time A says "I think I get what you're saying, but I don't agree, and I'm not interested in continuing this discussion." B, C, D and E continue to belabor the point. This, as I understand, would absolutely run afoul of Rule 4 because it's now a dogpile.
Scenario 4: Poster A gets into an argument with Poster B, with C and D occasionally chiming in. A eventually says that they think that Hitler was right. B, C, and D immediately say "**** off, Nazi," all in a row. A makes follow-up posts, and B, C and D continue to just say variations on "**** off Nazi." A, obviously, is about to get yeeted by Rule 2.
Now, as I understand it, B, C, and D are in trouble under Rule 4 for continuing to **** on A over and over again, long after the point where the mods should have been called. Is that about right?
Scenario 5: Poster A gets into an argument with Poster B, with C and D occasionally chiming in. A says that they think that the Holodomor was a good thing. B says "**** off, tankie," and hits the report button, and ceases to engage with the thread after that. C and D chime in only to voice their agreement with B, and then do not engage with the thread after that.
This is the one where I'm still hung up. A, again, is likely to get bounced under Rule 2 for posting apologia for mass murder and/or genocide. My question is: what about B, C, and D? Who runs afoul of rule 4? Do any of them?