I think it honestly depends. Not only on the posts created, but by the party creating them. There is a difference between someone choosing to defend themselves or others in a polite and intellectual way, and someone who enjoys stirring the pot just to stir or someone who has, in the past, created actual harm for others (outing, threats, etc).Everyone knows who the members are that enjoy stirring the pot and those members know exactly who to antagonize, to get that person to react and then it all starts to roll downhill, usually ending up that the person reacting is the only one who gets the short end of the stick with points from the mods.
Nothing in this world is black and white, there is always a fairly vast grey area. Originally Posted by Grace Preston
If there were actual rules, then it actually would be black and white. So what you are saying is it has to be two dynamics in play: if someone posts insults, personal attacks, name calling and hijacking a thread, then ALSO it is who it is making the post(s) that determines mod action/inaction.
You are probably right because as has been proven, some of the members that do like to make a post on thread topic, and even tho opinions will vary, would still like to have a cordial discussion. And if they choose to do so, have to post on pins and needles due to the agenda trolls attacking them because they follow those people around and check out what they posted another GL violation, then hijack a thread, doing a personal attack. One post like that is usually worth 15 points given the multiple infractions, yet the person that does it, continues multiple times a day. So, it is cleat that they post with total immunity because of who they are.
!
