Maybe we wouldn't have to use cautious language, just up the love quotient in each message. "I disagree with your self-promotion on this board. <3"
I'm generally in favor of free speech. If we have to be loving, which would very likely be nebulously defined, that means we can't even use a touch of sarcasm or risk breaking the rules. Healthy discussion or debate on a topic where people disagree leads naturally IMHO to observations of perceived absurd results of someone else's ideas. One thinks through the implications of what someone else has said, looking for weaknesses one can use to rebut what they've said. Sarcasm in and of itself is wry, not malicious.
I still think a good addition might be a strong suggestion or rule that if you have a problem with someone's conduct on the forum you would ordinarily start with a PM, which need not necessarily be to the moderator. In the recent hullaballoo, I continue to think it's obvious that a poster was promoting her blog. I've gotten agreement via PMs from multiple people who agreed completely with my assessment of the situation, and who thanked me for saying what they were too polite to say. To me this is confirmation that I'm not factually wrong in what I say, but also that others with the same belief were more restrained for a reason: not fear of the moderators here, as it might be on another site, but because they couldn't find a way to address the issue without singling the person out, using language that might be perceived as harsh, etc. They couldn't bring it up openly without risking reproach, or at least the perception that they were in the wrong in some way, by some of the people here. That to me means that a PM was probably in order, as the simplest way to smooth things over and restore order. I don't think anything I said was really wrong in terms of message, but it was wrong because its method of presentation was destined to cause an unnecessary ruckus.
I think my motivation in posting publicly was partly an aversion to using PMs for such things (which I'm rethinking), but also partly because I felt like giving voice to what I thought others must be feeling (as they were). In retrospect it doesn't really help the situation to do that, though; any remediation should be able to be achieved via PM.
And in a PM to a single person whom one perceives to be in the wrong, one might naturally use a bit tamer language for a few reasons (no words chosen in an attempt to openly vent group frustration, convince others to agree, etc.). In a PM including a moderator, one would obviously tend to use toned-down language.
I remain of course wholeheartedly in support of an anti-spam/anti-solicitation rule.
