I think most people are adult enough to recognize that provocative writing can't help but provoke, and that conciliatory behavior can't help but console. Artifex is upset because he made provocative statements that pushed the discussion beyond his ability to defend himself - and, in a pattern that should be anathema to Libertarian thinking, is now asking for external assistance.

The bottom line is Hubski has no down arrows. A "flame war" should end up at the bottom of any discussion with zero points. A useful discussion, on the other hand, will be rewarded. Artifex's original comment had one vote; mine had three. On pure, stupid math alone my diatribe was not viewed as detrimental to the conversation.

The minute you start legislating behavior, you will find that people will actively seek out the loopholes that allow them to behave exactly as they want without running afoul of the rules. Artifex is upset that I used the phrase "STFU & GTFO" while steadfastly refusing to see that invoking Princess Bride is rhetorically identical - yet he doesn't want to negotiate his own way out of the argument.

I can come up with eleventy-seven ways to metaphorically say "STFU & GTFO." They're each equally offensive. You start throttling behavior and what you will do is train inventive people how to be even more offensive without actually saying "STFU & GTFO" (like "I do no think it means what you think it means"). Far better to recognize that if you're going to be provocative, you will provoke others... and if you won't want to provoke others, try being less provocative.