Thanks to Nick for raising this subject and for describing alternative approaches. Thanks to all who have posted their thoughts. It's been useful.
I accept Nick's point that by having rules there will always be those who seek to take advantage of those rules. But I think that there will also always be those who seek to take advantage of having 'no rules'. If individuals are here to play games, to the detriment of the forum, we can ban them, anyway, regardless of whether they technically break the rules.
Regarding censorship, I think it can be looked at in a few ways. The idea that, by having no censorship, you are solely responsible for what you write is an intellectually appealing one. It's a view I naturally lean towards. However, I find it can be troublesome in practice. I'm happy to read (or ignore) abrasive argument, but I soon tire of reading personal abuse. If members self-censor then there will be no censorship. Nick's point about censorship being required where there is an element of commercial content (NVA) is a good one, but it turns out to be moot as Tomasz and I have decided that, in the future, we will concentrate NVA's commercial content at the new website and on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter pages.
In conclusion, I think that the ad hominem rule is a good one. It removes personal abuse without stifling robust debate. It is straightforward to moderate and explain, and the majority of responses favour keeping it. I don't see any requirement to change our existing rules.
Lastly, thanks to the mods team for their time and skill. Feel free to put them out of a job, though
