>>228hmm, I don't know about that.
maybe that's true if you're talking about a fixed group of people whose behavior doesn't change much. if those people want to be hostile, and you hold intervention over their head, I can see the argument that the hostility has just changed shape (become "secret" or "indirect", perhaps, like you say).
but in this context, I don't think the main purpose of moderation is to change how individual people will act. certainly there are some people like that - people who maybe had the wrong initial approach, but when prompted can "switch modes" and engage with the space in a positive way without feeling cramped.
but I reckon for the most part, the role of moderation in "steering" the environment is to warn or remove users who seem to be a bad fit; i.e., people who will consistently bring in hostility, antagonism, meanness, et cetera. and I'd argue you can definitely change the level of hostility in an environment by controlling who is in that environment.