Is it time to change the Statler and Waldorf policy?

Quote: SFB

The "community" of WoV only exists because of the "off-topic" stuff.

Sorry, you can only grouse about your gambling losses for so long...

And, for that matter, only one thing for too long.

There are ALOT of members here for a lot of different reasons., I like to play Craps, I want to learn how to play better, learn stick calls when I play at home, and how to make payouts simpler so that I don't look stupid in front of my friends.

And Face pointed out, some folks here were a real help with his Divorce and his G/F's illness.

*I* however, am *not* a member of the community. *I* come and go and post and read when I can. I am that guy at the other end of table who buys in for $100 and then sevens out and busts quickly. Nobody really notices as the game continues. But the dealers (mods) and boxman (Wiz) will be here tomorrow and the next day. The regulars come around and ask about the weather, and the *others* like me, drop in, shoot a little and then move on till we can return again.

Its not about a sterile gambling site. Its not about the times that suspensions may fly for whatever reason. Its about folks being comfortable finding what they need when they drop by....

SFB

I've tried to say this many times, but never as well as you have!

Quote: SOOPOO

I've tried to say this many times, but never as well as you have!

GRRRR Why can I put my thoughts into words like SFB just did. NO FAIR !

Quote: Doc

I am pleased that as a newcomer here you are able to find such entertainment in this forum. Perhaps your entertainment is enhanced by creative reading. I think that if you re-read my post, you will find that I never compared people fighting to a trainwreck. (I did say that people fighting and train-wreck dramas both annoy/irk me, but that is quite different.) I can't even guess how you came up with the notion that I thought being in a gunfight was preferable to anything, particularly being preferable to providing support to a woman.

I note that you joined this forum less than two weeks ago but imply that you are familiar with some of the discussions that took place here years ago. Is it possible that you participated here some time ago under a different name? There has been a lot of that going around here lately.

I realize you did not intend the meanings I found. But it is honestly the first meaning that came mind. No I have not participated before. I've read quite a bit here; I'll run into something that makes no sense, and I'll refer back to something else and read enough to understand what is being talked about. I even read a few of the Wizard's math problems.

Quote: Canyonero

Here's my take:

Why not differentiate between "ex officio" and "upon complaint".

"Ex officio" suspensions would only happen responding to the gravest of offences, while a suspension "upon complaint" would require the alleged insultee to report the infracting post to the moderators - then a strict no insults and no ad hominem policy should apply. No complaint - no action. (There is always the option of warning somebody if a post is close to an ex officio suspension.)

I personally think this is an excellent idea, I like it better than my nebulous idea. This is how the real world operates. If someone commits a crime against you, or someone else, the authorities generally do not care; they are busy and have limited resources. If you want justice, you have to file a complaint that essentially requests their assistance. The offender is always allowed to defend himself, but not before being jailed for two days. So it would make sense to suspend without warning for small infractions for 3 days, but the longer the time period, the more thorough the process should be; I do not think martingale is appropriate unless under some 3 strikes or aggravated system (the same category offense, not total number of offenses), as HotBlonde is the only one subject to policy that I have been present for, and she was exempted. Also in the real world, courts are more inclined to punish men than they are women, so it is not like we would have to risk losing our most precious commodity. In my mind, Muppets don't make sense. Laws do.
In the real world, egregious oes are pursued vigorously, without any complainant.

Quote: Sonuvabish

I personally think this is an excellent idea, I like it better than my nebulous idea. This is how the real world operates. If someone commits a crime against you, or someone else, the authorities generally do not care; they are busy and have limited resources. If you want justice, you have to file a complaint that essentially requests their assistance. The offender is always allowed to defend himself, but not before being jailed for two days. So it would make sense to suspend without warning for small infractions for 3 days, but the longer the time period, the more thorough the process should be; I do not think martingale is appropriate unless under some 3 strikes or aggravated system (the same category offense, not total number of offenses), as HotBlonde is the only one subject to policy that I have been present for, and she was exempted. Also in the real world, courts are more inclined to punish men than they are women, so it is not like we would have to risk losing our most precious commodity. In my mind, Muppets don't make sense. Laws do.
In the real world, egregious oes are pursued vigorously, without any complainant.

The problem with that is 2 or more members may go back and forth slinging insults and never complain. A new member may see this and think it's ok.

However, I like the idea anyway.

Quote: AxelWolf

The problem with that is 2 or more members may go back and forth slinging insults and never complain. A new member may see this and think it's ok.

I plan on addressing your first sentence precisely because of your second.

As I've said before, I absolutely love debate, love to argue, love when two or more people have a heated back and forth about a topic. Some of the greatest threads here are exactly that. Most of what has taught me the most is exactly that.

But when the back and forth consists of single sentences directly antagonizing one another, and the thread's gone pages of just the same members sniping each other, I start to come unraveled. I know many members feel the same. It'd be fair to say that my personal mission here is to end this very thing as I feel it has been the most detrimental aspect that's recently entered this forum.

Rule #1 - Attack the writing, not the writer.
Rule #12 - Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member.

Very simple rules to follow. I hope we all can give some extra effort to comply.

Quote: Nareed

Item: I do allow PMs. The bug that prevents a blocked user from sending a PM to the blocker is not my fault.

Blaming poor manners on a "bug" is ridiculous. If you KNOW for a fact a blocked member can't send you a PM and then you send them a PM that is not nice KNOWING they cannot answer back AND that they will face a suspension if they reveal the content of your PM on the open forum is just poor behavior on your part.

You are a member who "stirs the pot" (and I may sometimes be one, too) and sometimes you gotta take the consequences when you stir things up. Woman up and stop PMing people and hiding behind a "glitch". It is bad form.

Yes, she did send me a PM that I couldn't answer awhile back. Pissed me off then and it pisses me off now to see she still is doing it to others and blames it on a "bug"...

Quote: SFB

The "community" of WoV only exists because of the "off-topic" stuff.

Sorry, you can only grouse about your gambling losses for so long...

And, for that matter, only one thing for too long.

There are ALOT of members here for a lot of different reasons., I like to play Craps, I want to learn how to play better, learn stick calls when I play at home, and how to make payouts simpler so that I don't look stupid in front of my friends.

And Face pointed out, some folks here were a real help with his Divorce and his G/F's illness.

*I* however, am *not* a member of the community. *I* come and go and post and read when I can. I am that guy at the other end of table who buys in for $100 and then sevens out and busts quickly. Nobody really notices as the game continues. But the dealers (mods) and boxman (Wiz) will be here tomorrow and the next day. The regulars come around and ask about the weather, and the *others* like me, drop in, shoot a little and then move on till we can return again.

Its not about a sterile gambling site. Its not about the times that suspensions may fly for whatever reason. Its about folks being comfortable finding what they need when they drop by....

SFB

Perfect.

Quote: RonC

Blaming poor manners on a "bug" is ridiculous.

Absolutely. It's ebneath me, too. but that's not what I did. read my statement again. I said it wasn't my fault. And it's not, as I did not set up this baord or program it or whatever.

I do not want people who wish to PM me to think I'm not accepting PMs, after all. I've posted about this bug before and propposed solutions, such as the system warning you "this user has you blocked and won't receive your PM," for instance. of course, I'm highly ignorant of the ins and outs of web design, so I may unwittingly be propposing a huge job for relatively small gain (apaprently the block feature is under-used).

I did not say I don't take advantage of it.

Very often in this board I suffer insults that the admins refuse to do a thing about. More often I suffer frustration with some posters who, alas, have a thicker skin than mine. Less often I suffer annoyances, like people who have to intrude on off-topic posts to complain about the existence of off-topic posts.

What sometimes works for me is sending an innocuous PM, which ellicits a reply that in turn frustrates the other party. As far as I know, this is within the rules.

Now, I wouldn't oppose modifying the block funtion so that if I block you, for example (well, you're actually blocked right now), I coudln't PM you either. It would even be fair. But again I may be propposing uncounted hours of coding or scripting or something.

Quote: Nareed

Absolutely. It's ebneath me, too. but that's not what I did. read my statement again. I said it wasn't my fault. And it's not, as I did not set up this baord or program it or whatever.

Quote: Nareed

I did not say I don't take advantage of it.

It is beneath you, yet you do it anyway. Saying "it isn't my fault" is acknowledging that something in the software allows a poster who blocks others to send PMs to them yet not receive a PM in return. Most of us would figure that out and decide that the practice in question is not appropriate. You have decided to take advantage of it.

Quote: Nareed

Very often in this board I suffer insults that the admins refuse to do a thing about. More often I suffer frustration with some posters who, alas, have a thicker skin than mine. Less often I suffer annoyances, like people who have to intrude on off-topic posts to complain about the existence of off-topic posts.

The mods do a good job of taking care of insults...if you dish it out, sometimes you have to take it.

Quote: Nareed

What sometimes works for me is sending an innocuous PM, which ellicits a reply that in turn frustrates the other party. As far as I know, this is within the rules.

If your idea of an "innocuous PM" is what you sent me, you need to spend some time reading up on the word.

Quote: Nareed

Now, I wouldn't oppose modifying the block funtion so that if I block you, for example (well, you're actually blocked right now), I coudln't PM you either

The fact is that you did block me, you did know that I could no respond to a PM, and you sent me a nasty PM.

...and I would bet that you do the same to others.

Quote: Face

But when the back and forth consists of single sentences directly antagonizing one another, and the thread's gone pages of just the same members sniping each other, I start to come unraveled. I know many members feel the same. It'd be fair to say that my personal mission here is to end this very thing as I feel it has been the most detrimental aspect that's recently entered this forum.

How about when the arguing is so inanely repetitive and pointlessly immature that it simply devolves into a number of imbecile posters trying to goad another poster? At the very least the thread should be closed down.

Quote: SFB

The "community" of WoV only exists because of the "off-topic" stuff.

Sorry, you can only grouse about your gambling losses for so long...

And, for that matter, only one thing for too long.

Very well put. I say think of WoV as an off-strip bar where dealers, execs, and sharps all gather. They may talk about business or current events, but the bond is there. And the wealth of knowledge is amazing, which is why people stay.

My help/helping here is not as dramatic as some, but I have received general legal advice on a no-compete and given advice on mineral rights. Plus who knows how much else, that is just the big stuff I remember off the top of my head.

Quote: paisiello

How about when the arguing is so inanely repetitive and pointlessly immature that it simply devolves into a number of imbecile posters trying to goad another poster? At the very least the thread should be closed down.

Or you can just stop posting in it. People can continue to talk about how one can make a fair bet.

Quote: AxelWolf

Or you can just stop posting in it. People can continue to talk about how one can make a fair bet.

Except if someone's name is on the thread itself then why should they be the ones to stop posting?

And who said anything about a specific topic? I was being very general. You must then be talking about that one thread where you and the others keep goading me about not taking a bet where you tried to change the terms on me.

Quote: RonC

It is beneath you, yet you do it anyway.

It would be benath me to blame it on a bug. It is not beneath me to take responsibility for my actions.

Quote:

Most of us would figure that out and decide that the practice in question is not appropriate. You have decided to take advantage of it.

So we disagree. Are you surprised?

Quote:

The mods do a good job of taking care of insults...if you dish it out, sometimes you have to take it.

I did not see a "dishing it out" exception to the personal insult rule. can you point it out?

Quote: paisiello

Except if someone's name is on the thread itself then why should they be the ones to stop posting?

And who said anything about a specific topic? I was being very general. You must then be talking about that one thread where you and the others keep goading me about not taking a bet where you tried to change the terms on me.

Two posts earlier you referred to those goading you as "imbecile posters". You don't consider that a personal insult, now that you have named Axel as 'the goader'?

Quote: SOOPOO

Two posts earlier you referred to those goading you as "imbecile posters". You don't consider that a personal insult, now that you have named Axel as 'the goader'?

I was speaking in general terms without naming any one person or any one thread. Axel is the one who inferred the specific thread in question, not me.

If Axel or anyone else construed that I was specifically talking about him when I mentioned "imbecile posters" then they are mistaken because that would be a personal insult and is against the rules of this forum.

Quote: paisiello

I was speaking in general terms without naming any one person or any one thread. Axel is the one who inferred the specific thread in question, not me.

If Axel or anyone else construed that I was specifically talking about him when I mentioned "imbecile posters" then they are mistaken because that would be a personal insult and is against the rules of this forum.

Certainly you were referring to someone, though, and you can't argue that when you said "Imbecile posters," you were not actually referring to any posters whatsoever. You could list every single poster here and say you were not referring to them, but eventually, you will end up with at least two people (posters: plural) that you must have been referring to.

Personal Insult, Against Multiple Parties, by Admission, Three Day Ban.

In the "Discussion about the Suspension List" thread I had suggested that the Wiz put up a new sticky thread with clarifications as to what is and is not suspension-worthy. I have to say that it really is confusing as there are many thin lines people cross that are not clearly defined to begin with. Mike didn't respond to my suggestion but I am going to suggest it again cause it seems to be necessary at this point.

Quote: HotBlonde

In the "Discussion about the Suspension List" thread I had suggested that the Wiz put up a new sticky thread with clarifications as to what is and is not suspension-worthy. I have to say that it really is confusing as there are many thin lines people cross that are not clearly defined to begin with. Mike didn't respond to my suggestion but I am going to suggest it again cause it seems to be necessary at this point.

Just don't put yourself in that situation. Err on the side of caution. Don't deBaite people. If your worried about it just talk about happy gambling related things. I don't take my own advice on this because if I get suspended, I wont take offence and worry about it , I'll move on and get something more productive done.

Or I'll just sit around and think of evil things I can do (possibly a death list, alphabetical order, what comes after A?) ;)

Quote: Mission146

Certainly you were referring to someone, though, and you can't argue that when you said "Imbecile posters," you were not actually referring to any posters whatsoever. You could list every single poster here and say you were not referring to them, but eventually, you will end up with at least two people (posters: plural) that you must have been referring to.

Personal Insult, Against Multiple Parties, by Admission, Three Day Ban.

Please note I am asking about this suspension in precisely the thread on which it happened.

I am not sure it constitutes a personal insult when no person has been named or even alluded to. Further in a post I should write between today and tomorrow I will ahve harsh terms for unspecified people, some of whom no doubt are members of this forum. Will that constitute a personal insult as well? I should mention I can fully back up what I'm going to say.

Quote: Nareed

Quote: Mission146

Certainly you were referring to someone, though, and you can't argue that when you said "Imbecile posters," you were not actually referring to any posters whatsoever. You could list every single poster here and say you were not referring to them, but eventually, you will end up with at least two people (posters: plural) that you must have been referring to.

Personal Insult, Against Multiple Parties, by Admission, Three Day Ban.

Please note I am asking about this suspension in precisely the thread on which it happened.

I am not sure it constitutes a personal insult when no person has been named or even alluded to. Further in a post I should write between today and tomorrow I will ahve harsh terms for unspecified people, some of whom no doubt are members of this forum. Will that constitute a personal insult as well? I should mention I can fully back up what I'm going to say.

I have to agree. Axel alluded to a specific thread, and P--whatever denied that he was talking in anything but a generality. Describing non-productivity in general as imbecilic is not a personal attack. Every person on earth is capable, and almost certainly does, act stupidly at some point. Imbecilic is a synonym for inappropriate. The suspension list shows that many people have in fact made inappropriate posts. His attack was on a hypothetical thread, not a person, and his statement was so vague as to not be insulting. He did not allude to Axel, Axel made the allusion. Of course, there could be more than meets the eye (possibly some attitude?), but that is what is visible here. I ask that you at least re-read his posts.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Nareed

Quote: Mission146

Certainly you were referring to someone, though, and you can't argue that when you said "Imbecile posters," you were not actually referring to any posters whatsoever. You could list every single poster here and say you were not referring to them, but eventually, you will end up with at least two people (posters: plural) that you must have been referring to.

Personal Insult, Against Multiple Parties, by Admission, Three Day Ban.

Please note I am asking about this suspension in precisely the thread on which it happened.

I am not sure it constitutes a personal insult when no person has been named or even alluded to. Further in a post I should write between today and tomorrow I will ahve harsh terms for unspecified people, some of whom no doubt are members of this forum. Will that constitute a personal insult as well? I should mention I can fully back up what I'm going to say.

I have to agree. Axel alluded to a specific thread, and P--whatever denied that he was talking in anything but a generality. Describing non-productivity in general as imbecilic is not a personal attack. Every person on earth is capable, and almost certainly does, act stupidly at some point. Imbecilic is a synonym for inappropriate. The suspension list shows that many people have in fact made inappropriate posts. His attack was on a hypothetical thread, not a person, and his statement was so vague as to not be insulting. He did not allude to Axel, Axel made the allusion. Of course, there could be more than meets the eye (possibly some attitude?), but that is what is visible here. I ask that you at least re-read his posts.

Oh come on. It was obvious to all involved he was taking about the "Deathmatch for 10K thread." To claim otherwise is to consider the rest of us fools.

That, and he specifically said "imbecile posters." Therefore he was specifically calling (some number of) posters on this board imbeciles. I have no issue with the suspension.

Quote: AcesAndEights

That, and he specifically said "imbecile posters." Therefore he was specifically calling (some number of) posters on this board imbeciles. I have no issue with the suspension.

That one.

Quote: Mission146

That one.

Ok, but you didn't answer my other question.

It depends on what you say, I can only speak for myself, but if you have any question as to whether or not it is something you should post, feel free to PM it to me in advance and I will tell you whether or not it is acceptable. If it is not acceptable, I will detail where and why it is not acceptable.

I can't speak for other Administrators, but I would have no problem with you then prefacing the Unedited (compared to what I approved) post with something like, "Mission146 specifically stated, via PM, that a post containing the material and statements found here within is acceptable pursuant to Forum Guidelines."

IOW, anybody who wants to ask first can ask first. I do recall something about examples of this-and-that in another thread, but we're not going to list every hypothetical scenario. If anyone really wants to know, and is not deliberately trying to be offensive, insulting or hurtful to anyone else, just PM me and I'll let you know if I think it will fly.

I think I'll just get Sheldon Cooper to write a WoV Agreement. the hard part will be to get him over to make a ruling.

Just my opinion but I think there's a big difference between a personal insult and a general insult. To say "you're an idiot" and "you're all idiots" takes the insult away from being personal. So if it's against the rules to make personal insults you shouldn't get in trouble for making a general insult. But again I think the rules need to be clarified.

" Or I'll just sit around and think of evil things I can do (possibly a death list, alphabetical order, what comes after A "

Should I be worried ?

Quote: AcesAndEights

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Nareed

Quote: Mission146

Certainly you were referring to someone, though, and you can't argue that when you said "Imbecile posters," you were not actually referring to any posters whatsoever. You could list every single poster here and say you were not referring to them, but eventually, you will end up with at least two people (posters: plural) that you must have been referring to.

Personal Insult, Against Multiple Parties, by Admission, Three Day Ban.

Please note I am asking about this suspension in precisely the thread on which it happened.

I am not sure it constitutes a personal insult when no person has been named or even alluded to. Further in a post I should write between today and tomorrow I will ahve harsh terms for unspecified people, some of whom no doubt are members of this forum. Will that constitute a personal insult as well? I should mention I can fully back up what I'm going to say.

I have to agree. Axel alluded to a specific thread, and P--whatever denied that he was talking in anything but a generality. Describing non-productivity in general as imbecilic is not a personal attack. Every person on earth is capable, and almost certainly does, act stupidly at some point. Imbecilic is a synonym for inappropriate. The suspension list shows that many people have in fact made inappropriate posts. His attack was on a hypothetical thread, not a person, and his statement was so vague as to not be insulting. He did not allude to Axel, Axel made the allusion. Of course, there could be more than meets the eye (possibly some attitude?), but that is what is visible here. I ask that you at least re-read his posts.

Oh come on. It was obvious to all involved he was taking about the "Deathmatch for 10K thread." To claim otherwise is to consider the rest of us fools.

That, and he specifically said "imbecile posters." Therefore he was specifically calling (some number of) posters on this board imbeciles. I have no issue with the suspension.

You must be talking about an incident that happened that I am not privy to. However, may I suggest that your reasoning suffers from the recency effect? Although you may be correct (I trust you are probably so), there is certainly at least a reasonable chance you are wrong. I agree with HotBlonde. A general insult is not a personal insult. I really do not have an issue with a 3-day suspension because not only can you make a case that he was trying to insult without breaking the rule, but I thought I noticed some edge in his tone. But I'd hate to see someone repeat this same offense and get a 7-day suspension or more because of their history. That's a 1 to 3-day max everytime, in my opinion.

Quote: HotBlonde

So if it's against the rules to make personal insults you shouldn't get in trouble for making a general insult.

It's a classic letter vs spirit of the law. The letter doesn't mention general insults. The spirit is surely to allow no insults (of forum members).

Quote:

But again I think the rules need to be clarified.

Agreed.

Are there unrestricted insults allowed for people posting systems? Especially if they ignore all requests to post the math?

I think at first there was just a lot of griping about the whole personal insult thing and the potential change to tighten the rules. I figured that it would work itself out over time; maybe it still will.

What I have seen is a subtle change in the board that I hope does not grow--people thinking about stuff they wrote months or years ago and saying "that could be a personal insult"... I also think we may have a member or two trying to goad people into insulting them with what could be considered trolling posts.

We all know when someone is really trying to insult someone and when someone is just saying "you don't know what you are talking about"... I'd like to see us moderate the moderation to handle real insults--stuff that could lead to fighting words--and trolling for insults instead of having everyone (read: board members) looking at things that "could be an insult"...

For example, if someone says this is the "dumbest post I have written and that is saying a lot", they could be insulting me...and if they say "that is the smartest thing you've said in over 1,000 posts, congratulations"...they could also be insulting me. In the case of the former, they could also be chiding me for a dumb post or in the latter, praising me for a top notch post.

I don't know that the moderators have done anything I would disagree with, but there is a lot of chatter about stuff that just doesn't rise to the level of personal insult in my book. When someone tries to bully people or really insult them, kick'em to the curb.

My two cents worth...probably worth about half that!!

I appreciate what you've said, thanks Ron.

Quote: RonC

I don't know that the moderators have done anything I would disagree with, but there is a lot of chatter about stuff that just doesn't rise to the level of personal insult in my book. When someone tries to bully people or really insult them, kick'em to the curb.

My two cents worth...probably worth about half that!!

Put another way, lets not suspend someone for making their fingers or a Pot-Tart(R) into the shape of a gun and use common sense?

Quote: AZDuffman

Put another way, lets not suspend someone for making their fingers or a Pot-Tart(R) into the shape of a gun and use common sense?

Or a mobile phone cookie...

I've gotten so distracted reading this thread that I forget why I started coming here. Oh yeah - it's about GAMBLING. I least I think I remember it as being about the gambling. Can't be so sure anymore.

I think I have seen more interpretations about what an "ad hominem" attack is than about the proverbial head of a pin and numbers of angels. "You are an idiot", "I think you are an idiot", "My cat thinks you are an idiot", "Anyone who thinks like you do is an idiot", "Anyone who thinks my cat is an idiot is an idiot". Ad hominem? Some, not all? You got me.

RhodyBob's First Law: Everyone wants more bits.

Teenage kids, your boss, your wife / husband / spouse / partner / town councilman, state legislator, U.S. senator, president, and, yes, moderators.

Everyone wants more bits.

As a libertarian and free-market advocate, I believe that the marketplace, which is what this forum is (up to a point), can regulate and enforce it's own rules, without interference by anyone. I am not forced to come to this forum, I am not required to read any posts, and I am Free To Chose (thank you, Milton Friedman...) whether or not to participate, contribute, or FIND VALUE in what is here. As is everyone else. If the comments made by others are not to my liking, and/or get in the way of my achieving my purpose in being here, whether it be to enhance my gambling knowledge or for any other purpose, I can express that opinion in the hopes of making my experience better, or I can go somewhere else, should what I PERSONALLY feel is too much extraneous matter get in the way. Whether it's too many of the seven dirty words (thank you, George Carlin...) too much politics, religion, or sports, if this site does not meet my needs, there are many, many other sites out there that might do a better job.

The alternative to letting the marketplace (and our respective digital "feet") decide what's appropriate, is for all of us to give up bits of our own free will to someone else whose name appears here highlighted in green ink. Well-intentioned, sincere in belief, and willing to devote time and energy to the effort, for sure, but nevertheless with the stated purpose to decide, for all of us, what's okay for us to read.

Of course, I acknowledge that this is not a free market. It's a forum "owned and operated" by the Wizard. Who has, in turn, delegated some part of the management of the space to those folks with green names. Charged by him with maintaining the rules that HE promulgates. Whether it's to promote his businesses, burnish his reputation, feed his ego, or for any other purpose, he can set the rules, it's his marketplace, they're his rules.

My point is, please, just get on with it.

If this is a free exchange of ideas, then Justice Antonin Scalia said it best, several times, during oral argument about cases like this before the Supreme Court: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me, isn't that right?" Let anyone say anything. We can figure it out. We can EACH decide, individually, what's "ad hominem" and what isn't. Don't take upon yourself the management of everyone's "bits" about the meaning of every word in every post. When that happens, you end up with threads like this one - what is it now? twenty or thirty pages? Angels, heads of pins, and pinheads.

But on the other hand, if this is a benign dictatorship, then nail the rules to the nearest tree, state the penalty to be assessed for violating the rules, and move on. Actually, don't nail any rules and just delete any post you find offensive, as soon as you see it, so that only those that read it during it's brief life even know it ever existed. Why did that post get deleted? Because we didn't like it. Oh, and you're banned, for this amount of time, for the same reason. Whether the "we" is Wizard, some UnderGruppenAdmin, or the Wizard College of Cardinals, it's done, there is no appeal, just move along.

You have already seen in this thread what any policy in between these two extremes generates. White noise. Static. Please. Make it stop.

We should just have a personal insult forum where anyone can bash whoever they want. And you automatically get nuked if you have a legitimate, rational reason for doing so, because gamblers are irrational. That type of stuff belongs at DT.