I think what you're trying to say is this:

I don't think Cone was fair in editing Kowenicki's thread title for this thread.

And that's a fair point to make. The original thread title was something like "Nintendo announces mobile partnership, despite some Nintendo fans anger, Stock increases 26%" (Obviously I'm paraphrasing here) and that basically covered what Kowen was talking about.

Cone then changed it to just about the rise in stock as an precaution for the title coming of a bit combative. Was it a knee-jerk reaction? Maybe. Was it "right"? Not necessarily. So then, was it "wrong"? Not really, no. It was a simple thread title edit that didn't target anyone or derail the discussion.

Did it deserve to have Kowen to respond in the way that he did? No way. There was a plethora of ways that Kowen could have contacted us to talk about what he wanted for the thread title and how to solve the problem amicably. In fact, I think I'll edit the thread title now to make sure it accurately portays to what he wanted to say and where the discussion was going.

This issue could have been avoided every step of the way, if only folks would just talk with one another. We'll be sure for mods to be extra clear of their intentions going forward. Thanks for bringing it up though! :D

The amical discussion cannot happen if you only expect it to start from one side. In most cases, mods don't discuss anything. They act, and then the moderated party has to start the discussion. 

I think we need to talk about the g-word. I need this figured out. I've been banned for it once and got another warning recently. Now I see someone else getting banned for it with a ridiculous explanation.

Of course I'm talking about the word "gay". This seems to be a special trigger word for mods and I don't think this fair to the word, gay people or people who are using it without malicious intent.

Let me just get this clear first. "Gay" is not a slur, it is not a sexual based slur, it isn't even derogatory depending on context. Anybody who thinks that calling something or someone gay is a sexual slur is a homophobe. Because obviously that person thinks that a person being homosexual is something bad. Such individuals should be removed instantly from this forum anyway.

Let's start from the beginning. "Gay" is a regular word in the english language with multiple meanings depending on context. Like so many english words.

1. gay as a synonym for homosexual. This is the only sexual meaning of this word and it is in no way derogatory whatsoever. Calling a person gay is at the very worst a misunderstanding or a lie. It is not an assault on somebodies sexuality. Again, if anyone would take being called gay as a sexual offense, that would imply that that person thinks there is something wrong with being gay.
Last time I checked misunderstandings or lies are not forbidden by the forum's rules unless they are with hateful intent. A fact that is easily gathered from the same post the statement was made.

 2. gay as a derogatory term. Gay can be used as a synonym for boring or lame. However using it in this context excludes any notion of sexuality. It's simply a different meaning of the same word. One easy way to see the distinction here is that this meaning can only be applied to things or abstract concepts like actions, but not people.
Therefore it is on the same level as its synonyms. "I think this looks gay" should not be weighted differently than "I think that looks lame". Because they mean the exact same thing.

3. gay as positive term. Gay can be used as a synonym for joyful or happy. While this version is not used widely anymore it is important to note. It's the perfect example that word's meanings can change radically over time and that they shouldn't be linked to each other because of this. the sexual meaning of gay was derived from a completely non sexual word. When it changed its meaning yet another time it went back to being not only non-sexual but also almost the opposite from its original meaning. This just shows that we should treat each word for its intended meaning and not from which word it was derived. Or else we couldn't even use gay in a sexual way.

What this all boils down to is the realization that it is absolutely impossible for the word "gay" to be a sexual slur. It can either be pejorative OR sexual, not both. The same way it can't be positive and sexual at the same time. Sexuality is neutral in itself.

Banning or even warning someone for using the word gay in whatever of these 3 meanings alone is ridiculous and insulting. Ban people with hateful intent, not for using non-offensive words in their intended contexts!

You wouldn't ban an Englishman for calling his discarded cigarette a faggot, would you?

Nope. You're not calling the persons gay. You're calling the actions they take gay. Which is what I said in the same paragraph. The derogatory term is only used for things and not people. Unless of course there is hateful intent.

If you would try to use it against a person, it would be a personal attack anyway which is prohibited by the forum rules.

Calling a thing lame is not banworthy. Calling a person homosexual is not ban worthy. Using a derogatory term that is meant for things on a person is a personal attack and banworthy.

And where do you think the sexual meaning came from? From a positive stereotype. But as we all know even positive stereotypes are bad. So we shouldn't even use the word gay in a sexual sense by that logic.

Words change meanings all the time. But using just simple symbols to judge an action instead of the actual intent we can all call ourselves stupid ignorants right now and start removing all the swastikas from bhuddist temples because apparently all Bhuddists are Nazis, or are all Nazis Bhuddists? Doesn't matter! Let's judge by the definition that we like the most and not the one that actually applies.

It's really simple. You ascribe the word gay to things you think are lame or bad. It's a very poor choice of word on your part. Rolstoppable explained it quite well already. You're wrong for using it in the way you do. There are a lot of homosexual people on VGC and the way you use that word makes it so you appear as saying they're lesser people for being gay.

If we start catering to the lowest common denominator we can close this forum indefinitely. Society as a whole actually.

It's about principle as much as rationalism. People should be judged by their intent and by their actions. All good judges interpret intentions rather than reading from a book and following it literally.

Also gay has an absolutely different color than lame. People use it to express a certain kind of lame. The same reason I use the word "porno" instead of "cool" for a lot of things because it fits better.

By supposedly respecting the freedom of people who don't like to see the word gay you're restricting the freedom of expression in a non-harmful manner of others. And I would like to know why the former group(which I don't believe actually exists on this forum) gets instant rights before the other.

Like Rol said, "gay" has been used to insult people and refer to them as inferior. Describing something as gay such as "These shoes are gay" means those shoes are bad, rubbish, and/or inferior. The word is being used to describe something as bad by associating it with an entire sexual miniority in a negative way, i.e. a sexual slur.  Using the word as a sexual/sexuality slur breaks Rule 13 which in part states:

You should avoid:

• Using any racial or sexuality-based slurs, even if you are not using them maliciously.

The meanings of words change, while gay used to mean cheerful or happy, in the present time it's pretty much an added definition of a homosexual male. In the context of someone being described as gay because they are a homosexual is no different than someone being described as straight because they are a heterosexual. It's not used in a pejorative manner therefore there is no cause for concern. 

So we abide by the wrong assumptions of the offended rather than by true intent.

This sucks. Going by the rule that everyone who uses the word gay in a derogatory context is a homophobe is certainly a very uplifting attitude.

This conversation reminds me of high school in a way. Being in the know of slang. haha. Banning a proper word based on it's repurposed meaning to some people? That's silly in my opinion even if the word is offensive to some people. Perhaps, just sticking to "intent" and "context" when it comes to what's offensive or punishable would be better. :D