My wife just called

Ditto!

does it seem as though the city cleared the snow from the curbs where people pay to park, but did nothing on the curbs where parking's free?

Yes, I did - and still do - bemoan incivility. But not disagreement. However, what troubled me more than the incivility were the vague and inconsistent "rules" concerning what is considered uncivil.

In fact I still find it baffling that I can't surmise that someone has emotional issues, but I'm perfectly free to directly say I hate you to someone on here. That's just weird and confusing.

I honestly think if you just let people duke it out it, these spat threads wouldn't go on so long. I strongly suspect that the attempts to put out these "fires" only adds fuel to them. When people are arguing, it's very annoying when an unrelated third party comes in and says "come on now, play nice."

Why? It's not like you're in another room trying to read but can't because you hear the arguing posts. And I'm sure you'd rather be doing something else on this board then trying to stop arguments.

I just think that too often a well-meaning person jumps in to to try and disarm something that doesn't need to be disarmed. There should be a certain amount of leeway to vent.

It's almost like two people on a street corner having a spat. Then a stranger comes up and tries to calm them down. Then one of them tells that person to shut up. Then the other person tells the person who told that person to shut up to shut up.

Then someone else walks by and sees the hub bub and decides they need to add their two cents or that they can diffuse the situation. And so on.And then what was once just two people bickering becomes an all out melee.

I think if you just ignored most disputes, they'd burn themselves out. But that's just a theory. I could be wrong and if you just let things go it could turn into Craigslists Rant and Rave section. But I have a higher opinion than that of most people here.

-- wow it's gotta be obvious I'm procrastinating about doing work today.

(by the way, I didn't intend to be unfair to Booklaw. I'm sure he can tell the difference, but I feel he's a little over cautious. But hey, so's my mom and I love her).

It's not my site so I don't make the rules, but being allowed to say “I hate you” without explanation, while not being allowed to criticize people for the specific things they write is still backwards to me.

"I hate you" simply put, is a personal attack. I don't see how it isn't. And the logic you used could be applied to both instances you give. You could just as easily say that saying someone has emotional problems is a reflection on the person who says it, not the person who it's directed to. I think it’s a matter of context.

If someone puts up a post that says “I like apples” and I respond by saying they have issues, then that’s just a weird, random attack. But if I give the same response to someone who makes a provocative blanket statement against a group of people, it’s not an attack, it’s on observation.

Also, I think allowing “I hate you” opens a can of worms for you mods. If we can say this, then wouldn’t we also be allowed to write “You suck” or “Fuck you” to people on here? Isn’t that the same thing? Nobody wants that, so why not just make it a rule that we can’t do that either? It would be a lot more consistent that way.

Maybe somebody said something like "I hate you" to you in the past, and you're wondering why that never got acted on, and so, it seems vague and inconsistent to you. Actually, I don't like it either when people say things like "I hate you" to each other. But I'm not going to run around intervening every time somebody says something nasty to somebody else. I don't think anybody would like it if mods were that heavy handed.

This is the rule of thumb: it's going "over the line" whenever the argument stops being about the topic and starts being about the people arguing. When that line is crossed, a moderator may (or may not!) decide to step in and use their best judgment.

So if it seems vague and inconsistent - and I also hate when things are vague and inconsistent - there is that one clear rule of thumb, which is that we need to keep our eye on the topic and don't turn the argument on other users. No matter how detestable you imagine them to be. (Emphasis on "imagine", since really, you're getting mad at an online persona... think about it.)

My job here is not to ignore disputes. My job is to determine whether a dispute violates site rules or is about to do so.

That is what I try to do.

As in a preemptive strike. Interesting. Bush doctrine comes to Brooklynian.

This thread is kinda awesome....

Lots of not listening, people talking through people, misinformation, misunderstood arguments, ridiculous arguments, blanket statements, people thoroughly engulfed in hearing themselves tap the keyboard, etc..

I didn't actually read any of the above posts (I'm a little busy) - just my professional impression.

I think I'll like it here.

Your avatar says it all :-k haha