tl;dr: Please keep the topic(s) as the center of attention, instead of each other.
...
Apologies for the delay, I've been insanely busy with RL...
For reference, here are parts of the CoC which I believe may relate to concerns...
Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.
I do believe there are context issues, but not extravagant lies. FYI, that part of the CoC was put in place for bizarre over the top slander, not mere misrepresentation (again, we put in "not to be confused with mere context issues" for good reason).
Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm.
The second part I certainly hope has not come up in anything related to this, but it serves dual purpose in suggesting a certain magnitude. As an example,
Sean Connery certainly crosses the line with on SNL (notice the frequency of drifting off topic... key flaw in this example is that he is directly invited each time).
Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
Added bold for emphasis on two points. Over the line harassment is often identified with the derailing thing; which isn't to say people cannot have grudges. Further this is a debate site, therefore so long as it's staying on topic disagreements are usually encouraged. If in doubt, so long as the ideas are the focus instead of who said them, it should be safe territory. There's also a
pinned thread at the top of this forum, due to the expectation that political talk gets more ugly than most (we expect to have to lock threads, thankfully it's been awhile without that...).
If a member politely requests that you leave them alone, do so. Repeated failure to comply, is a clear aggravating factor regarding the content of said posts.
So here's the big one... If someone asks you to leave them alone, and you choose to not comply, over the line misconduct is looked at more harshly. It ties into the whole reasonable person standard. In essence, when another user has made said request, future engagements with them should be understood to be treading on thin ice. Going back to the SNL example, Trebek and Connery could still attend the same party and at it get pulled into the same conversation, but if Connery then starts into random insults it's considered a lot worse than had he no idea the other person had a problem (some friends joke around with each other, I've had to delete so many reports when some third party is traumatized by the sight of this...). At the same time, without things having risen to the point of an RO, if Trebek spotted Connery at said party and charged him preemptively, Trebek would be the one in the wrong.
Consequences for violations include:
Nothing, as most perceived violations are too minor to constitute a true offense.
Written warnings, which are most common for first-time violations.
Restraining orders, which will always be mutual to ensure neither may antagonize the other.
Revocation of abused privileges, such as loss of the ability to create threads due to creating too many spam threads.
Temporary bans, with increasing duration for subsequent violations, up to 90-days.
Indefinite bans, which have no set expiration, but may be appealed every 90-days.
So RO's do happen. Someone jumps on things every time your name is mentioned to throw
off topic insults, that is a clear case showing the need for it. Usually things don't escalate that far.
...
All that said, unless anyone has gotten truly vile, please try to understand elevated emotions during the election. Presumably we all want what's best for America, but just have different ideas for which path is optimal. Please try to remember that of each other, even if that will forever create a divide.