The following is from the Rules guideline as prohibited behaviour:



Now I've seen countless posts that constitute nothing more than insulting and derogatory remarks, mostly aimed at the perceived liberals of this community.

So my question is, what is the standard?

Here is an example:

[QUOTE]To the contrary, I believed your motives were pure but incredibly naive.

Now there are several people who simply call people ignorant or just plain dumb frequently. So my question is, what is the standard?

Edited to save face...

I can't give you a standard, because it really depends upon the context, the intent, the tone, etc... What I will tell you is that if you feel like you have been personally attacked by someone and a moderator doesn't notice it, report the post. We try very hard to be fair, and we have a reasonably diverse committee that we can consult regarding these matters.

Rule of thumb for debators: Attack the argument, not the person. If you feel like an argument is incorrect, don't tell someone that they are naive, ignorant, or uniformed. Instead, attack the faulty argument with information and facts. PROVE that you are right. Ad-hominem attacks only hurt your own credibility.

FYI: Strikes are only visible to the person to whom they were issued and members of the Moderation Team. This is the reason that you haven't noticed anyone else's strikes. Had you not posted this info here, no one else would've known that you had a strike, either.

I'm glad you brought this up, though: that's probably something that should be mentioned to people when strikes are issued.

I have a remarkable knack for acquiring information through the worst possible channels.

The quote in Joe's OP was attributed to me personally and I'd like to respond to how I felt about the remark.

I do not enjoy the blanket statements like the one above. But they are common when discussing politics and should not be considered a flame in and of itself. I am perfectly able to handle these kinds of remarks in civilized way and feel they reflect more on the person making them than on anything else.

I would hate to see un-necessary restrictions on our speech if possible. There is such a thing as too PC and such a thing as a personal attack but they are two ends of the extreme and sometimes hard to judge.

That's all.