On a few other sites with discussion boards where there is a ban on political discussions (which are the ones that tend to get heated) -- it's mentioned as part of the "house rules" and moderators are there to lock down or remove any threads that violate the rule -- but mostly it tends to be self-policing. The adjustment period was pretty short -- once everyone understood the rationale for the ban (those that didn't generally had other issues and eventually got banned for other reasons). Now you'd think that technically-oriented folks are likely to be rather rational -- but then previous experience on Usenet news from the 1980s thru mid-1990s tells me otherwise. Questions such as "what's the best language (for some given task)" would often degrade into heated arguments about "best computer language" typically falling within the lines of personal likes/dislikes rather than actual technical reasons. On occasions the tirades are a source of amusement --resulting tirades that occurred after someone flamed (harsh critique) the "Ray Tracing Jell-O Brand Gelatin" paper that appeared in the Communications of the ACM in comp.graphics newsgroup -- It took over a month for some folks to cool their heads and realize the joke was on them -- the person posting the original "flame" post was the author of the paper (and if you read the flame post *carefully*, it didn't take too long to realize it was all in jest -- especially with some of the outlandish statements such as [paraphrasing] "If you're serious about high-resolution computer graphics, you'd use NTSC" ).

>I concur with the sentiment that more traffic made the forum alive and probably visited more often, even if a sizeable % of those messages was not really new information. Since despite some warnings the Chatter area deterioated, I doubt that just reopening would result in better results in the long run.
>
>My take on things is that chatter was not always given the same level of thought as postings on technical questions. Some posts offered new info, others were reflective ping-pongs of previously uttered opinions, after some exchanges perhaps spiced with more sarcasm.
>
>I believe with some ideas from traffic shaping the quality of posts in chatter could be elevated. Since only a few rules would have to be created, it might be a chance without management spending a lot of manpower. Other options like self-policing I believe wouldd create more bad blood. Decisions coming from Michel were acepted with minimal grumbling, clear rules set into stored procedures should evoke less grumbling, perhaps some ideas of better/more refined SPs.
>
>While personal stingyness keeps me from getting a subscription in a forum where I think I offer more help than questions, I would try to help to create some rules for automatic dampening of some chatter-threads going overboard into regions turning off those not directly involved ;-)
>
>Just going back offering the same is no solution IMO and evokes the quip of expecting different results... We are DB oriented, we should be able to define such rules for ourselves ;-)
>
>
>>Now that there has been a cooling off period, could you reconsider restoring the Chatter?
>>Seems like a lot of people are really disappointed.
>>My business experience says you listen to your paying and also non paying clients. I learned this a few years ago.
>>
>>Just a thought......