P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...
We revise the rules from time to time; this one has been in effect for several months, but not since the blog's inception. Recently, the word hasn't been used as an attack -- and really, hasn't been used at all -- so there's been no reason to issue warnings.
I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.
Let's use the example you gave above, regarding the use of the word "stupid". Calling somebody "stupid", or calling their opinion "stupid" might be distinct, in terms of actual intent. However, oftentimes the only message that comes across is that one poster is insulting another. That's not respectful behavior, nor is the use of the words "hating", "hater", etc. They caricature and insult one's arguments.
Also, I do want to note that the list of terms included in the rule is not exhaustive; note the text of the actual rule, which includes the following language: "examples include,
but are not limited to," and "etc."
You're certainly entitled to your opinion; that's why we have this thread in the first place. I'm sure it seems like very few of the complaints get anywhere, but I'd like to think that's because we try to act reasonably the first time around. While I'm sure every member of this staff is fallible, we're trying to keep this place as clean as possible. In this instance, nobody was suspended, banned, or even personally warned; quotations were given, but names were not referenced. We were simply enforcing a rule, in as logical a manner as we could. While I am sure many people disagree with a number of our rules, I do think that by and large those rules are enforced consistently and fairly.