one thing we could easily do is to create a second channel that long arguments can be moved into.
Opposed: In the past, i have seen this tried and not work; it creates an atmosphere under which arguments are encouraged to happen because there is persistent systematic acknowledgement of their existence. There is also a heap paradox problem in the definition of ‘long arguments’: any drawage of the line will most likely be arbitrary, and leaving it up to “administrative discretion” creates a hole through which those with administrative power are given infinite power. Enforcement of a law to move arguments would require administrative intervention, something not always possible and something which would upset the atmosphere of Apionet.
someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.
When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.
when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:
[Criteria list snipped; see o.g. post]
I've observed all people of Apionet doing their best to comply with these criteria, with mistakes and insufficiency being rare. Formal instantiation would be redundant.