Although Hubski enables you to ignore posts that you don't want, there isn't a commenting filter, and it's not something I'd personally like to have. Thus, we are left to a sort of social contract, or at least established norms. Here's my thinking on this: Even if it is explicitly discouraged, some people will be hostile to others. Personally, I have no interest in justification for hostile behavior, original salvo, or in retort. However, as different people will draw the line at different places, control is in the hands of the offended party. Here's my suggestion: If someone offends you, either 1) continue the discussion in a civil manner, ignoring the hostility, or 2) do not reply at all. I hope we can not only make a genuine effort not to engage in hostile behavior, but to also ignore it whenever it occurs. Sometimes it takes walking away for a bit and coming back :), but we should not give hostility fertile ground, especially when it begs for it. I'd like to know what other people think on this, as I might make some changes to the about or faq pages.
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.
Uh, I think he was just asking for people not to be dicks. My dad and I argue politics all the time at the dinner table, and when he gets his facts wrong or says something idiotic, I don't tell him to "Shut the fuck up." I think you are completely missing his point (trying to miss it?). Furthermore, it seems that simply having an open discussion with the community about the issue instead of asking Hubski to ban people or implement down arrow so the community could ban people is kind of the epitome of a libertarian response, isn't it? You don't seem very well versed in libertarian solutions to conflict, but hey, that's just how you come across to me, no offense.
No, I'm arguing that there are plenty more ways to say "STFU & GTFO" than saying "STFU & GTFO" and among those are quoting the princess bride and mentioning the dreaded imperialism of government. Just so we're clear - your take on my "rudeness" is the "STFU >FO" aspect? Or something else?
People are generally of the opinion that I crossed it. Yet people are also not denying that Artifex's initial post was also on the other side of that line. So the real question is this: who has the obligation to keep abuse out?
This is simply false. I can defend my ideas very easily. However, I chose not to engage with kleinbl00 because of his tone, his words, and his utter lack of civility and otherwise antisocial behavior. Moreover, even if I weren't able to defend my ideas, we have to ask the question of what kind of community are we encouraging when the mentally strong are allowed to verbally bully and attempt to intimidate the weak into submission? Someone may be wrong, but that, in my opinion, is never a reason to be disrespectful, intolerant, or bigoted.