I disagree! I think it’s essential we engage in hypotheticals at this point.
The rule YOU wrote encourages so-called “creative insults,” but as the members of this board have pointed out, the distinctions you’re drawing are incomprehensibly vague.
I think you take pride in the general quality of people who post on this board, until they disagree with you or point out flaws in your reasoning anyway. While the distinction between “insult” and “abuse” may be clear to you, the comments on this and the associated threads should make it obvious, I would think, that we don’t see the lines you’re drawing.
Someone who seeks to “fight ignorance” would jump at the chance to make his arguments and viewpoints more clear, rather than muddy, I would think.
What you think is abusive and what we think is abusive may be entirely the same, but right now none of us can see the lines you’re attempting to draw.
I have trouble attributing this to any desire to clean up the content of the pit. if I’m reading the rules wrong please say so, but it seems I can call Sally Jesse Raphael* a “fucking soggy cuntwaffle deserving of a lifetime of misery and horror,” but I can’t do the same for a poster? How is there any difference here?
Right now, I don’t see this as a rule so much as a general guideline resulting in arbitrary and capricious enforcement at best. Review the preview, if you want a business environment and not a “biker bar” why not just eliminate the pit and ban foul language across all the forms…
Heck, you could even start requiring business lingo too. That might make it sound like a real business! I’m not complaining, I’m simply illustrating a potential reduction to our bottom line. It’s foolproof!
*I have nothing against you Sally. You just happened to be the first name to pop into my head.