Unfortunately, it's historically clear that it's not possible to completely seperate the person from the duty, no matter how much care you take in doing so. If user-Nereid would prefer to interpret the rule that way, it can't help but (however slowly) seep out in her mod actions.

From a personal sense, the idea of restrictions on speech of any kind, good speech or bad, even in a private forum like this one, invariably makes me a little... wary for lack of a more accurate word.

We can't really stop the lower-quality ATM posting without becomming draconic about it and/or keeping the mods really REALLY busy. We similarly shouldn't restrict pure-discussion ATM for the reasons pointed out above. If you restrict the pie-in-the-sky, you're either trapped into restricting the stuff with potential under the same rule, or being arbitrary. Any sort of restricting of non-disruptive speech leads to undesired outcomes. In a general sense, speech restriction usually works out that way.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.