Well the thing is people don't like being told how to act. So the more you go "you all have to act like X" you get 20% who agree, then 20% who go "fuck that, no one tells me what to do, I'm going to do the opposite!" so in the end it's hard to tell if any real progress is made. The latter is called the "Backfire effect" in psychology.

This is also one reason I'm against having tons of rules, because it apparently just pisses everyone off and doesn't actually better define the culture of the site, and kind of just actually acts like a wedge. I think encouraging positivity is a more useful tool to the end of creating a good site culture, than trying to define ever-narrowing rules which just anger people who then feel attacked by those rules.

It's much easier to just group everything under the pyramid of debate, and give individual warnings as specific scenarios arrive, then do a '3 strikes you're out' system. Keeping everything low-pressure like this makes a better community, then trying to play "culture cop". If you see what I mean.

Voat used to have this thing called "protect voat" and it was basically a mob that descended on anyone they didn't like. It was one of the things that was supposed to stop the cultural backslide problem, but only served to intensify it. I try and learn from their mistakes.

This stuff is super tricky. I think it's one of those things where "less is more". And "If you do everything right, they won't know you've done anything at all". Both those quotes often come to mind when administrating or moderating. I haven't found a better technique, personally. But I do appreciate the PSA, everything said. The culture has to hold itself up, at the end of the day. But I think it works best by example, rather than by telling people how to act.

Anyway, that's kind of my take on this whole thing, because it is insanely complex and subtle to make it work right. So that's what I've figured out so far, hope that gives you food for thought.