I'd like to chime back in here. I think what is appropriate or inappropriate relative to forum participation in certain threads depends on the context and the purpose of the thread:
(1) When someone asks the community for advice on the best power cord, fuse, interconnect, or other tweak, they are not asking for a naysayer to jump in and troll the thread by offering a link to Amazon to buy $1 fuses and a marker to make it blue or red. They are asking a question of those who believe in the efficacy of the product to share their experiences, and it is the naysayer who jumps in and does so that is the one trolling that thread. If stated in a civil fashion like "as I have said before I do not believe this tweak to be effective" that would not be as insulting as some of the responses I have observed.
(2) When someone poses a question about whether a given tweak is effective or not, they open the forum for believers on both sides to lay out civil thoughts and arguments about the product; but not for people to start attacking each other personally or trolling the thread by posting elusive, sarcastic, or otherwise non-responsive posts. Just stick to the debate in a civil fashion.
(3) When someone posts an attack on the tweakers or the naysayers, like the original snake oil post that was shut down, that I unwittingly revived with my OP, they are opening the floor to whatever is said on both sides. That said, I do not feel it is civil to post such an attack. My take is ClearThink's post was a diatribe that invited the vitriol that appeared on both sides and it became not only counter-productive but downright uninviting except to those who love to fight. And fighting is not the purpose of forums - it is for the exchange of information and ideas, and sometimes entertainment (but not fighting).
(4) When a tweaker posts to promote a tweak product, they open the floor for it to be debunked. This is not the same as asking for someone's advice on the best version of X, Y, or Z or even a question as to its efficacy. Rather if the intent of the post is to promote a tweaky product, the floor is open both to support the product or to debunk it, and you have to be willing to live with both. But let's stay civil.
(5) There are those who obviously have a financial interest in the matter of these debates. I think those posters should best think carefully about what they post as the financial interest strains credibility. I would also suggest that those with a financial interest should not be seen as posting sarcastic or otherwise chaos creating posts simply to misdirect the debate so as to make it more difficult for a civil discourse on the topic to proceed. I see that going on at times as well, similarly to how Mr. Trump's tweets are intended to enflame people in order to sidetrack what might otherwise be a reasonable discourse or fair debate.
I propose these thoughts to try to parse out what is fair game in different contexts. Reasonable minds may differ.
(1) When someone asks the community for advice on the best power cord, fuse, interconnect, or other tweak, they are not asking for a naysayer to jump in and troll the thread by offering a link to Amazon to buy $1 fuses and a marker to make it blue or red. They are asking a question of those who believe in the efficacy of the product to share their experiences, and it is the naysayer who jumps in and does so that is the one trolling that thread. If stated in a civil fashion like "as I have said before I do not believe this tweak to be effective" that would not be as insulting as some of the responses I have observed.
(2) When someone poses a question about whether a given tweak is effective or not, they open the forum for believers on both sides to lay out civil thoughts and arguments about the product; but not for people to start attacking each other personally or trolling the thread by posting elusive, sarcastic, or otherwise non-responsive posts. Just stick to the debate in a civil fashion.
(3) When someone posts an attack on the tweakers or the naysayers, like the original snake oil post that was shut down, that I unwittingly revived with my OP, they are opening the floor to whatever is said on both sides. That said, I do not feel it is civil to post such an attack. My take is ClearThink's post was a diatribe that invited the vitriol that appeared on both sides and it became not only counter-productive but downright uninviting except to those who love to fight. And fighting is not the purpose of forums - it is for the exchange of information and ideas, and sometimes entertainment (but not fighting).
(4) When a tweaker posts to promote a tweak product, they open the floor for it to be debunked. This is not the same as asking for someone's advice on the best version of X, Y, or Z or even a question as to its efficacy. Rather if the intent of the post is to promote a tweaky product, the floor is open both to support the product or to debunk it, and you have to be willing to live with both. But let's stay civil.
(5) There are those who obviously have a financial interest in the matter of these debates. I think those posters should best think carefully about what they post as the financial interest strains credibility. I would also suggest that those with a financial interest should not be seen as posting sarcastic or otherwise chaos creating posts simply to misdirect the debate so as to make it more difficult for a civil discourse on the topic to proceed. I see that going on at times as well, similarly to how Mr. Trump's tweets are intended to enflame people in order to sidetrack what might otherwise be a reasonable discourse or fair debate.
I propose these thoughts to try to parse out what is fair game in different contexts. Reasonable minds may differ.