Just to be clear, in my imaginary world where I have these tools, I would split out the shitstorm name calling into a separate thread and let this discussion continue without the name calling spat. But that is because their spat has nothing to do with the topic at all.
I think Thomas was fine to post this:
I am just sick of you thinking your threads are sooo much more important than mine just because mine don't directly relate to warlight, you think that makes me a dick and you absolutely amazing
But then after Lawlz baits him the whole thread gets ruined. Up until then, Thomas was making legit points (about what is deemed important on the boards). We may disagree on this, but he's right to argue his point. Where the discussion goes awry is the personal attacks.
On my boards I am admin on, my procedures would be:
1) Start a new thread titled something like "Lawlz/Thomas argument"
2) post a link back to the thread it was split from
3) move all derailed posts to that new thread
4) post in this thread that the argument was moved to the new location.
...Now the thread should still be on track and they can bicker over who contributes more to the forums.
The key to successful moderation is to be transparent in all actions taken and allow arguments that don't derail important topics (if they do, move them). It is about facilitating dialog, not ending it.
Edited 3/25/2015 19:07:41