@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I would quit altogether. It's part of my policy against fora with meddlesome rules. I know I don't spam, I know I don't troll, and apart from that, I maintain civility on what seems like a common-sense basis to me. Occasionally, that's not good enough to keep me from violating a form's terms of service. (I don't read them on principle.) If my common sense is not good enough to stay in a website's good graces, I conclude that this is probably not a place where I'll feel comfortable, and leave.
Thanks for your excellent answer.
That's essentially mine as well, and (being an egoist) the one I expected to dominate.
Obviously there is no right or wrong answer. Just one that makes the most sense and displays an admirable level of confidence and independence.
Seriously, I think it comes down to the possible causes for suspension and how confident you are that you would not trip one.
Right now and from what I can tell suspensions have been imposed for:
1) Use of a slur directed at an individual but potentially offensive to a larger group of people sharing the characteristics that are basis for the slur e.g. calling someone a "fag"
2) Seriously accusing, without evidence, someone of a behavior that is not only criminal but loathsome. e.g. Insisting someone is a "pedophile." (I am not certain if evidence of an explicit intent to humiliate or ostracize is required, or if such intent is implied. In the case in point, it was very clear that the intent was to humiliate)
3) Engaging, ad nauseum, in an exchange of insults which is entirely off topic, clearly repetitive in nature and content, and shows no sign of coming to an end any time soon.
As regards #3, I'm not sure if the use of vulgarity is a required condition. In the case in point, vulgarity was used and apparently timur was advised that his suspension was due to use of either "inappropriate," or "obscene" language. I can't recall the precise term, but it's somewhere in this thread. I suspect, however, that timur received a sort of form notice because Robert couldn't bother with going into detail. Just before or after the suspensions to timur and frank were imposed, Robert chimed into the thread to let us know that the prior practice of freezing a thread wherein an interminable argument had arisen would no longer be employed. Instead "micro-suspensions" would be imposed. Considering the timing of the suspensions and Robert's post, I have surmised that the
interminable argument offense triggered the suspension of timur (and frank) rather than
use of obscene or inappropriate language. I was a bit surprised when I learned that the "micro-suspensions" imposed on the pair were each one week in length. I had thought that a "micro-suspension" would last 24 to 48 hours.
There may, of course, be other specific suspension triggers. Unless it has been revised recently, the TOS doesn't delineate any so a member must either keep track of the informal notices Robert posts (such as the one about the
interminable argument offense) or reply upon his or her own common sense and decorum to provide guidance. I don't foresee Robert providing us with a list anytime soon.
This could prove tricky if any of the causes are entirely subjective or at all arbitrary. Of course this is an exaggeration of the dilemma, but if one day Robert decided he had had enough of people calling one another "stupid," and imposed
"you're stupid" suspensions, quite a few people would get tripped up.
Like you, I trust the foundation of civility provided to me by my parents, teachers, pastors and the like to guide my behavior. In a more stringent and aggressively monitored forum, I could easily have warranted one or more suspensions by now, but they would be, to my way of thinking, ticky tack. Fortunately this isn't the case with A2K and one of the reasons I have been somewhat reluctant to embrace a few of the changes Robert has announced. With time and consideration I have come around to most of them.
Of the three known causes for suspension, I'm not concerned that I will trip any of them. I would only use words like "fag" or "dago" in jest and then only with someone who I was certain would appreciate the joke and not take offense. I honestly don't believe anyone here fits that bill, and that's only because I don't know anyone here well enough.
I am also not concerned about the
"Serious Accusation Without Evidence" trigger. It's just not something I would do. After 40 years in the corporate world ( some 30 or so with e-mail being available) I have learned to be circumspect about what I write. Such "training" hasn't stopped me in the past nor will it stop me in the future from calling someone a "fool" or a "jackass," but while these are hardly terms of endearment or the sort of thing I would call a client or employee, I feel they have their place here.
I've been known to continue a one-on-one argument longer than anyone, other than my antagonist, cares to experience, but I'm confident that I'll grow tired of the back and forth well before it enters the realm of
interminable argument
Now if Robert ever imposes a
long winded response intended to please no one but the person responding trigger, I'm in a lot of trouble.