Discussion of moderation policy

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-07-2016, 06:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: kinser clearly has been abusive toward me, and sometimes others. He takes the approach that I am to be assumed to be someone not to dialogue with, but merely to insult. He is on my ignore list because it's clear that a civil dialogue with him is impossible, and quite quickly consists of nothing but insults. Such a dialogue does not interest me. It should also be noted that his strongest disagreements with me are not political, but philosophical.

I don't know if people should be banned if they call someone an idiot, but there's no way that any post can be called "civil" in which you call the other person in the conversation "an idiot."

This might be an example of how a thread can get diverted into ad-hominum fairly quickly.  If people get going like this, at what point should they be invited to create their own thread rather than clutter up a meaningful discussion?  If a bad actor constantly gets such invitations, should further action be taken?  Can one talk about the issue without attacking the individual?  Where does one draw the line?  I'd suggest that when the focus is on insults and folks are going after each other by name, one is close to if not over the line.

In this case we might have two people proclaiming no interest in ad-hominum while practicing it?  (Scratch head.)  If one constantly dishes it out, how much space should one be spending on the board whining about having to take it?