One thing, struct - this is a large message board. VERY large. It may very well be that the moderators just plain outright missed any other verbal sparring in that thread but yours - perhaps they just happened to catch it, perhaps someone pointed them to it, who knows? They’re only human, and this isn’t their full-time job. The only thing they get is a fucking coffee mug (and some of them haven’t even gotten that yet). Ease up, for God’s sake. “Tyrants” indeed. :rolleyes:
I disagree; I think I would give a garden-variety warning for #3. It is unmistakable that if “that argument could only have been made by an idiot”, and that argument was indeed made by the poster, that you are saying the poster was an idiot. I would let it slide if “the argument that could only have been made by an idiot” was not in fact made by any poster in the thread. For example, if no one in an abortion thread is arguing that children can be killed before they are two years old, you can say that that sort of argument could only be made by an idiot, since you’re not insulting any actual fellow debater.
Trying to push the limits of what is acceptable will NOT lessen the degree of censure; if anything, it will make me more irate since it is a deliberate attempt to get around the desired modicum of civility required in GD through some sort of imagined technical loopholes. I am probably more sympathetic to posters who attempt to follow the rules but lose their temper in a fit of passion that I am to posters who make calculated efforts to insult other posters and “get away with it”. So “theoretical insults” like “if I was in a bad mood, I’d call you a yak-felching brain-dead assfucker, but since I’ve had my coffee this morning, I’ll just say your argument is poor,” do NOT keep you safe from censure. Just try to be a little bit civil to your opponent and you’ll probably be just fine, but toeing the edge is a dangerous game.
By the way - the reason why we move discussions to The BBQ Pit is because those discussions often turn into criticisms of the SDMB staff. It is not to encourage posters to start heaping abuse on the person making the complaint.
Whatever line you draw in the sand, I can find examples that inch closer and closer to the line on either side. As an example, you could state a proposed policy and we could demonstrate how it will call for “in the eye of the beholder” decisions - e.g. you will decide one way and the person sitting next to you will disagree.
#3 is over the line as Fenris has chosen to slightly twist it. However, the pure Shakespearean reference would not be. “Your argument is as a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
This is a) directed at the argument, not the arguer and b) it is a literary reference. Apropos literary references aren’t really personal insults and are in a special class because people just can’t be expected to resist the opportunity to make them, even if they don’t add to the discussion. Consider this classic example.
The topic of absue in GD seems to have been cropping quite a bit lately. It was recently discussed in this thread.