Eric Hernandez said:I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground.
The rules make sense to me; I've spent enough time writing and reading online to know that every third post can turn into pure, vulgar vitriol. Even if they have a point, that kind of behavior ruins the quality of the discussion intended for this space.
That said, granitefox16 is right—people should be allowed to lash out at whoever they want whenever they want, provided there's actually an argument behind it. Stopping that would basically be stifling free speech and killing the debate itself, which serves as valuable info for other potential users of this ISP. If people are allowed to trash talk Bernie Sanders, Mike Krzyzewski, a lipstick brand, Lady Gaga, or whatever else, I don't see why there should be any exceptions here.
The solution isn't just to "poof" the problem away by adding a rule and handing out bans. Especially not here, since the forum is supposed to be a place for opinions, and rules like that are way too subjective. We need more active moderation if we actually want to hit that middle ground.
Here is another example of negative criticism toward the provider:
That post broke the rules in just two words. It’s easy to moderate something like that. I just censored those two words with asterisks, left a comment, and issued a yellow card as a warning. Simple stuff.
But on the flip side, granitefox16's post is impossible to moderate. In that case, the only thing a mod can really do is slap them with a red card.
Regardless, it's quite possible the rules will be slightly reworded. Vitriol will likely still be banned, but it'll be phrased differently. Posts like granitefox16's simply cannot be tolerated. (I'm only mentioning granitefox16's post as an example, not because of an appeal or because I have a personal vendetta.)
