Why would this forum count as a party though?

When did I say that you are the only one who benefits?

By the way, if you want to be on the offense, you should call people by their names. Otherwise you look like a coward.

It depends on how they probably feel, heck I see a certain user who recently commented on here get away with it all the damn time and even our other resident harasser here once tried it and he never saw ramifications for it along with sometimes calling them either idiots or stupid which he did for me once if I at least remember but it's not my issue to pry into this any further ... (sometimes I see the latter calling others stupid/idiots and he sometimes gets away with it but other times not) 

You don't promote them by naming their names. You add proper accountability to yourself because it's clear who you are talking about.

And no, the reason why I don't like the rule is that I have seen it time and time again that people got moderated for it and were struck by how paradox the rule is, because it protects people who shouldn't get protected.

if i drink its only to get wasted and go party other wise not drinking.

Somebody get this man a cookie!

This guy sent  sexial messages to my avatar boy :D

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/174320/beambaeg/

Yes, I have considered it. You have a situation where Mr. A, Mr. B and a police officer are standing next to each other and on the other side of the street is a group of black people.

Mr. A: "Niggers sure are deplorable people."
Mr. B: "You are a racist, Mr. A."
Police officer: "What Mr. A said wasn't nice, but I will have to fine you, Mr. B. You can't go around calling other people racist."

That's what you would call a terrible police officer, because he is making an awful decision despite being a witness of the whole event. Mr. B did nothing wrong, but merely stated what every human being capable of coherent thoughts would conclude in this situation. But this specific police officer is of the opinion that only a police officer should be allowed to call a racist a racist.

...

Now for the question of putting myself in the shoes of the mods and where it would lead if the rule were to be changed. Right now the mod team is supposed to evaluate the full context of a reported post and apply common sense when enforcing the rules and guidelines, so if the rule were changed, nothing about the workload would change. It isn't that hard to see a difference between a rightful accusation of racism (or trolling etc.) and a wrong one. The community here is small enough to know the platform preferences of members and their general posting style (laid back, aggressive, disdainful etc.).

If I put myself in the shoes of one specific moderator (Carl), then nothing about my stance towards the messed up rule is different. Carl has first hand experience just like me. Years ago there was a member who was guilty of major hypocrisy/distortion of reality who went to the length of editing month old posts after they were brought up. We had no edit stamps back then, but Carl used a website archive and proved that the posts were in fact edited. I don't exactly remember which word Carl used to describe the offender (it was an accurate description though), but ultimately the result was that Carl got moderated while I am not even sure if there were any consequences for the offender.

...

What I have done myself on multiple occasions is that I got bans overturned for people who said something to me, so I am not a dishonorable person who exploits this crappy rule. Additionally, if we assumed that I am exploiting this rule, it would make absolutely no sense for me to be by far the strongest proponent for years to get rid of this messed up rule. Also, I got bans for flaming overturned that didn't directly involve me, simply because the mod team overreacted for whatever reason.

A rather recent case concerning the "don't call a spade a spade" rule is this one:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8732731

Since I am aware of how stupid the rule is, I messaged zorg1000 and instructed him how he will get from ban territory into the safe area. All this takes is a change from the word 'troll' to 'detractor'. In the past Miguel has mocked my statement that the mod team gets fooled by words, but it really is easy to manipulate and exploit the system. At the time of zorg1000's post, there was no doubt whatsoever that quickrick is a troll, but on this site there is a ruleset that gets people into trouble for merely stating the plain obvious while it takes a long time until a member like quickrick faces any consequences for constant trolling, because it's so easy to get away with it when the written rules don't get explicitly violated. The "don't call a spade a spade" rule, however, uses some very specific words, so it leads to much faster moderations.

It's messed up that one truthful statement can get a member moderated while someone like DonFerrari who shouts hypocrisy at every opportunity without providing any proof can keep doing what he is doing. Isn't it obvious that wrongful accusations are much more toxic than rightful accusations? But no, here we have a system where evidence in plain sight gets regarded as irrelevant (like in quickrick's recent moderation which spawned this whole discussion) while the complete absence of evidence (like in DonFerrari's frequent posting behavior) is deemed acceptable.

"That's a pretty racist thing to say"
"That's clearly racist"
"You're a racist troll"

Only two of those things are alike in nature and wouldn't have been grounds for a moderation.