Sissyl wrote:Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?
No. It's more complicated, because it's purely subjective.
The other absolute approach would be James's approach earlier - anyone who claims to be offended is right and should be apologized to and the offensive comment retracted and not repeated.
On these boards, in the end it comes down to the moderators. Because they actually have the power to delete posts/lock threads/ban users. That's not quite the same as "most popular support".
Obviously, first come people who have the power to enforce things. That should be indisputable. However, what is interesting is what happens outside their direct influence. People are people, and power is certainly not only formal power. Instead, it becomes a pecking order based on very fluid, subjective criteria like political views, how well someone is liked in various groups, how well someone can bully others, age on the forum, previous interactions, number of likes you have in the thread, official stuff done, if you represent someone, and so on. Those above you have the right to shut you down. Those below you, you can shut down. All that is needed is to claim offense, then puncture their claim of offense with "it was made in bad faith". Nobody gets to say different.
EDIT: Rewrote this.