Because being that what you just describe is relative, as I personally don't think that he fit in any of those descriptions.And you don't need to use those words to describe a person, especially if you want to have a discussion, a nice conversation about a heated topic. I mean, I could say that any socialist is an idiot, but that wouldn't be productive, would it?
Just to be sure, if calling Trump that is ok, can I go to any other political thread and call Biden, Sanders or any other politician the same thing, without any argumentation or text to speak of, and be ok with the rules?Because that would be awesome.No disrespect to anyone, just making sure.
About the bolded: Well you could, even if he wasn't refering to anyone here especifically, but then you would have to take the issue with the one that not only continued, but doubled down on the problem, don't you guys?Or is it ok for someone to be rude, but not the other?Because if what the original poster wrote was considered baiting/flaiming, well Truck certainly isn't above that.
You are ignoring the point. The point is that one's medical prowess is unrelated to their being any of the things that were described. Tell me how those are exclusive to one another.
Ask the mod team, that's on them. I've never been one to think that insulting public figures should be out of bounds. I maintain that from when ioi banned people for insulting Michael Jackson after he died. If you're being belligerent and off topic you can get in trouble, but Truck's response was neither of those.
I don't consider what the original poster wrote as baiting/flaming, I just don't think you can whine about people commenting on the president being a shitty person when you bring it up. I also think the original post being replied to was just a shitty post. A shitty generalization which was never meant to bring forward the conversation. Truck's response was all such a post deserves.
The relation between him being a good or bad person and his medical prowess has nothing to do with it.But rather the slandering does.That's my point.
Even if he is a public person, he is a beloved public person, no matter how much you may disagree with me.More than it though, he is a beloved political beloved person.I agree completely with the Michael Jordan example, but it depends on the situation.If it were someone who kept saying annoying things about Michael Jordan in any thread that might have a relevance, then yeah it might be worth looking into, because that might be considered flamming.In another words, baiting people into fighting with you and entering such discussing in bad faith.
That's obviously not Truck case, because I don't remember him doing that regulary, but one such example off the top of my head of a user that was banned regarding this kind of "annoyance": Kerotan.He almost never did anything that was ban worthy according to the rules, but he always baited Nintendo fans in his discussing.In another words, he kept provoking people over and over again.Other example is Goodnightschrum(I think that's him, not sure now.Sorry if I'm confusing with someone else!), which was the same as Kerotan, but in regards to Sony fans.
In regards to the bolded: Then you can actually say that the thread is the original "original post being just a shitty post" because let's be honest, with a title like "Someone has a plan how to fight Coronavirus, but it is not the clown in the White House" you are not exactly being civil or at least nice to others who think otherwise.That actually is the definition of baiting/flaiming, as I understand it.I would actually say that even if it could be worded better, Radek response was the post this thread deserved.