I believe the rule reflecting the Voat User Agreement should stay, but I'm going to consider alternatives for the name and/or the definition. 'Abusive comments' seems so broad that it could encompass just about anything. That title can cause more contention than the rule is supposed to help circumvent.

But having a rule to reflect what it's intended to accomplish is important, as current situation does demonstrate (no I am not planning on spending hours to forensically dissect the arguments over the @darkknight111 post where @Nomochomo decided to protest issues belonging somewhere else. I believe he stated that he used @darkknight111 post as a venue for his own agenda and initially didn't put effort into the research at hand to bring the original post into compliance with the rules about what constitutes a PG relevant post. The initial two links he provided as "research" did not accomplish the effort warranted in that situation, and clearly he didn't want to put in the time then to make it clear the links did accomplish that, and as it so happened, they didn't imo. Should I have to spend an hour or more combing through long involved links to tease out and apply a litmus test to the tiny bit of info that may or not hold up under the scrutiny of the case in hand because one user presenting it to a mod says it holds up? No. Are the mods supposed to do that for the user? No.

Did I have to spend way more time then I ever wanted to just make that last statement? Yes. Or I wouldn't have said it. Is this how a research board is supposed to operate? Not in my opinion no. Did it disrupt time spent on my own research? Yes, but since it became such an issue on the board, it seemed necessary to comment about it here.

Does the silence on behalf of researchers to comment in on the thread demonstrate a support of one side or the other over mod practices? No. In my case it only meant that I hoped there would be a return to the research, without the disruptions arguing the finer points of what constitutes a disruption (yet AGAIN, for the bizillionth time on voat research subs). In fact if a user hasn't been around long enough to make such distinctions perhaps they should be required to read the VOLUMES of arguing over it as opposed to presuming that every other user is supposed to litigate their disagreements for them. I've backed down when I've been in disagreement over interpreting research because it seemed at the time to benefit the board members (to refrain from further argument) in an area that became subjective, not empirically conclusive.

The goal is to be able to maintain the integrity of board in respect to the purpose of posting research that fits the criterion and discussing that. That takes an amount of 'in good faith' motivation, meaning that as individuals with a common purpose, we try to recognize the difference in our own motives with just as fine a tooth comb, as we are willing to subject others to our interpretation over their motives.

And within PG I presume one situation the 'No comment abuse' rule is supposed to circumvent is when posts are used to further personal agendas against other users, under the guise of "oh I'm just trying to research" when it's clear to the average researcher that the research is no longer the issue within the controversy a given dispute. PG researchers have gone through time and again dealing with the disruptions of personal agendas (@Esotericshade sticky stands as monument to that).

I will put time into considering a better title and/or definition of rule 5, 'No comment abuse', but my vote is to keep the rule for the time being.