The single biggest problem with communicating on a text-based forum site such as this, is the fact that the extent of what medium is available for that purpose is the written word.
This means that obvious satire isn't interpreted as obvious satire, but instead taken literally. Perhaps there's some latent or overt autism involved in the general failure to appreciate that level of nuance -- and doubtlessly there is, given the nature of this website -- but the written word is doubly predisposed towards this species of misinterpretation because of the absence of vocal inflection and subjective ambiguity inherent in the meaning of word choice.
But what is vocal inflection? Here's a sentence to help you think about the issue:
"I didn't say he kicked his dog."
Try reading that sentence placing emphasis on each single word, and consider how the meaning changes.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--But someone else might have said that.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--Def. no dog kicking.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--But I might have implied it... and perhaps I was. (I was.)
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--But his girlfriend totally did.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--Not kicking, but def. other animal abuse.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--Not his dog, but maybe the girlfriend's dog.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--He kicked the cat across the room like an errant soccer ball, however.
See the point?
The other problem is word choice.
We all react to words in different ways. Some people are easily offended by some words, others less so; and we all have subjectively varying connotations to words, especially when used in some form of sequence. A very direct sentence may be meant to read for clarity, but at least some easily excitable readers may interpret it as aggressive. An indirect or circuitous sentence may be meant to soften the impact of an otherwise harsh blow, but it comes across as prevaricating and disingenuous rather than as kind as possible. This happens because of the baggage we bring to interpreting the meaning of the written word, sand that baggage is why people argue about what words mean for a living.
I don't have a clear solution; other than to set forth things that should NOT be done, in any circumstance.
The first thing to avoid is reading the worst, or most uncharitable meaning into something for any purpose. Maybe someone posted an ironic thread which may have literally involved some name calling, but the thread itself was beyond obviously satire. You'd have to be autistic to interpret that as bullying or harassment, and if you are autistic, then you probably need to spend some time considering how literal interpretations of things and your propensity to do that may well make you not suited for interpreting the meaning of obviously satirical posts.
The second thing to do is to avoid reading meaning into something that isn't there. Just because someone's tone seems to you to be "angry" or whatever, doesn't mean that it is. People are usually pretty direct in terms of how they express anger in online written text. They CAPITALIZE ALL LETTERS, or IMPOSE OVERLY EXCESSIVE EMPHASIS. These things are dead give-aways, sometimes. Other times not. But a subtle jab isn't an indication of anger, so don't react as such... just makes you look excitable and emotionally illiterate.
The third thing to avoid is overly-rigid, literal interpretations of what is said. The "burn down your house with lemons" meme from DDO comes to mind. Obviously everyone here knows that's a meme, because it's physically impossible to burn down someone's house with lemons. But if someone threatened to burn down someone else's house in a mafia game? Is that a "threat" in violation of the so called Code of Conduct. Under an autistically literal interpretation, yes. But to anyone not plagued by one or more cognitive deficits, absolutely not. There is room for ostentation, obnoxiousness, and the like; within the rules of any reasonably written code of conduct, because these things are human nature.
