from what i can see, forum softwares probably work in a somewhat basic way. they would need to be improved to allow for more selective use.
But the general idea is to be able to subject offenders postings to scrutiny before they are published, and relative to that particular thread. Obviously the mods would simply do what they already do, but they are warned that the offender is trying to post again in that thread.
The offending poster can continue to post in any other thread without scrutiny.
So its specific to the thread involved. but as said i think that level of facility isn't readily available in the software, otherwise it would already be in use. Or maybe they can do such things but require more memory processing time etc.
It appears that the only way to stop an individual from posting in a thread is to either ban them from the site or close the thread. That this is probably determined more by the software's capability than the decisions of the moderators. This seems remarkably crude for what is an essential part of this site and many others.
i think that if the moderation results in closing the thread, that will occur after a recognisabe set of circumstances has set in. as i said before those corcumstances are usually very similar in such cases. i can see that a thread is descending into a squabble and so can a lot of others, so in effect we are all witnessing the event. but standing by in fascination, seeing how far it can go before the inevitable locking must be brought into effect. that seems to me a collective responsibility as well.
so if we all can see the inevitable on its way, why is not possible to simply pull out the main offenders; rather than stop everyone else having fun.
it still seems like a very crude way to deal with a problem. why dismiss the entire workforce, if two offenders can be sacked.
thanks for saying that. i am sure most people appreciate the work of the mods, and its a canny skill to do.
i don't think its the skills of the mods that are at fault. obviously at some point in the events of a controversial thread the only option appears to be to nuke the entire thread. so i assume you just don't have the software tools to manage out individual postings.
so going back to the topic, i think some topics get discussed by being presented from a variety of different viewpoints, framed within a set of examples; but basically the same debate. so in that way the topic can be discussed again. but restarting a thread that has been blocked comes with a toxic component, and people are steered by that.
also this not the only site to have the same kind of debates. joining a debate on the times say would have a very different ambience to work in. same debate but much different types of input.
anyway if there are going to be heated debates maybe we could rig up some kit to these peeps and derive some kind of power from them. then use it to generate electricity.
I can see people advocating for gagging orders thus limiting freedom of expression....i think swearing and insulting language should be tolerated on this forum.
may as well ring the n.h.s. helpline and get a diagnosis from the call centre with fully trained/degree in extra sensory deception.
kirk douglas! let's knock him. fucking cunt kirk douglas! with your blue eyes. just cos you were in the vikings you think you can swan about the world lording it over everyone! well you can,t , fuck off!
i.e. You or I choose to submit a post, or a follow-up post on a controversial thread, but a Mod has already subjectively decided that there's a bit of a fuss, and so it doesn't go up on a thread until a Mod has read it, and decided if it's allowed to go up? 
