Hmmm... this "rule" is vaguely-worded and sounds like something easily misused in the wrong hands. "Constructive" is possibly one of the most subjective terms in the English language. How can this rule possibly be exercised without also being censorship?
First, new rule #10 (why is the new rule not the last one on the list, btw?) should read "the moderator" and not Fon. The distinction is important because currently it seems to describe a special right which only the corporation has. It should instead reflect boardmember's roles and who shall do what. Otherwise, the impression of a dictatorship is reinforced.
Second, there doesn't seem to be a formal process here. IMHO, bickering should be ignored until there has been a legitemate formal complaint made. Then, the moderator should persuade the offender to see the error of his ways and edit his own post for compliance. If that fails, the moderator should then XXX out offending text, but not delete the post. Obviously, the moderator should reserve the right to smudge out phone numbers, email addresses, etc. immediately in order to protect other's privacy. Spam posts do not need
Banning a user is censorship. It's like an execution. Except for spambots, there should be a moderation process involved. Instead of banning someone, it would be better to simply suspend their ability to post, etc. Once again, this process should only start following a legitemate formal complaint.
This board's traffic is low enough to make this much effort a reasonable thing to ask of the moderators.
Perhaps we Foneros should establish our Fonero Bill of Rights soon, before Fon Wireless, Inc. outlaws the possibility?
