This has left one opportunity for discussion of replacements: retrospectively discussing a replacement that has already occurred. It's quite common for players to say things like "player X doesn't like playing scum, their replace-out may imply the slot is scum", or even "that slot has been replaced 5 times, maybe it's scum" (whether or not these tells are actually
Anyway, what I'm interested in is whether rulesets should go further in relation to banning discussion of replacements. As opposed to wording along the lines of "please do not discuss replacements until after they have been confirmed to have occurred, this means replace-out requests must be sent by PM", which is annoyingly complex, it would be simple for rulesets to just say "Do not discuss replacements. If you want to replace out, PM me" – in effect, treating discussion of replacements the same way that discussion of ongoing games are. That rule is simpler, and I'm not necessarily certain it's worse. (If it's equal, or better, I'd much prefer the simpler definition!) Note that, as with reads based on ongoing games, forming reads based on the circumstances of a replacement would be permitted, but explaining them would not be.
As such, I'd be interested in input on whether public speculation about replacements that have occurred is a good thing for games. Would it be better to ban it? Are there major balance impacts (enough to make the game unplayable, or small enough to be balanced around)? I have a suspicion that games might be less toxic if people couldn't get into arguments about what had caused a replacement to occur (especially because, under current replacement-discussion rules, there would never be any certainty about it); however, I'm not sure. I think it's a topic that may be worthy of discussion, anyway.