>>>>Marcia G Akins
>>>
>>>I do understand you're point Marcia - one can always simply not subscribe to the chatter section or just not read certain posts - but it's supposed to be a tech forum - why turn it into a forum of chatter when there is facebook for that type of thing? The website owner can do whatever they want with it so no reason to take a vote on it - it's not up to us, it's up to the owner of the site.
>>
>>Victor, responding to your point of "but it's supposed to be a tech forum" - that begs the question why you've posted in the chatter forum on these topics? You're not required to answer, but I think it's a fair question.
>
>For me the water cooler analogy is quite fitting: while there is the side function of off-topic/no-tech themes, it still preselects participants. I find that preselection of smart peope, but with philosophies and viewpoints all over the map interesting enough not to look for similar selections elsewhere. Because the Trump/EC topic to my taste has been flogged to death plus the tone has followed level of political debate I had expected a reaction.
>
>Removing the water cooler totally might be worse for interest/participation in the long run (my take on that topic), but even after selling, Michael is still interested to further the site.

I think you and Dragan have well expressed the value most participants saw in the Chatter forum. Here are a few more thoughts in no particular order.

For quite a while the site's T&Cs and the (then) BDFL Michel's occasional use of the banhammer kept things surprisingly civilized. However, over the last few months it's been clear DMIB/Michel ("management") were no longer interested in enforcing the site's T&Cs. In some ways that's completely understandable - for example it's been argued that Twitter is facing an existential crisis over this very issue. The problem may be intractable.

For all we know, maybe it's been an experiment by management to see if we could self-discipline to what they consider an acceptable level. If so it's been a miserable failure.

I don't know why management even bothers to continue operating this site. Quite a few years ago I made a guesstimate of subscription revenues and it was pretty decent but no doubt it has dropped a lot since then. My gut feel is it might now be only 10% of what it was at its peak. How is it sustained?

I rarely see any advertising on this site (but maybe that's just my settings/configuration).

My (vague) understanding is management uses the UT engine for several customers' internal purposes. If so UT probably enjoys collateral benefits from those other sites' operation and maintenance.

Aside from that, what? How can management monetize this site/community to a level where it's at least self-sustaining? Ask the hard business question - what is the value of the community on this site? I'm not sure it's worth anything.

I've never seen a better interface for a threaded discussion forum. Maybe management keeps it running to be able to show prospective customers. But Michel has been marketing this engine for a number of years and let's face it, it hasn't taken the world by storm.

From a hard headed business POV I can't see why management continues to run this site. Having members then create hassles by violating the site's T&Cs doesn't make continuing to operate this site any more appealing.