|Why would you want to leave aside people's feelings and split the effects on the discussion into either positive or negative?|
Well, obviously, because I'm evil.
Seriously, though, I meant only that we don't really have a lot of control either over people's feelings or about how honestly and accurately they express them. As we often discover, what we or others believe to be innocuous statements can cause significant offence, and what we believe to be offensive others can not object to at all. If somebody makes clear that they feel that they are the victim of impolitesse, then they can make that clear. However, I think the problem I see with your recusant model is that it narrows the options for the participants further. Thus:
2: I find the way you have made (statement) unacceptably rude. I will not discuss this with you further until you apologise.
1: Well, I don't think the way I made (statement) was unacceptably rude. As such, I do not feel that I can in good conscience apologise for it.
2: Well, in that case I have no option left but not to speak about this further.
1: Nor I.
I'm not saying people should hhave to wade through knee-deep through slurry all the time, but I don't think that that's happening. What I do think is that one person's passionate response to an idea might be considered insulting to another person.
In the Temple, there's a further problem, in that the issues being discussed are often about the practice of magic, which its practitioners believe will potentially have a real effect on the performer and on the world, in one way or another. So, we have had people in the Temple asking how they can do things that were considered morally repugnant (kill people, control women's minds so they go out with them, like that) - I don't know if there's a duty on the class to withold their own personal reaction to such things, even before we get on to the question of whether or not the methods they might try out would work, but if we assume that what they do might work, that's another level to the engagement.
Which possibly dovetails us back into the question of moderation... is there an ethical component to moderating in the Head Shop? Do moderators have any duty to try to preserve or protect either posters or people posters might interact with magically? Of course, if so, then we have to start looking at the criteria we use to select moderators...