Try reading the thread.

I'm pleased you agree on clarifying, that's something i suppose. I know many others disagree with about you on the rest.

Most people would immediately stop calling someone from a different culture a word that they found offensive because they have an understanding other than the common usage here. It wouldn't be sufficient to tell them they have to accept it because they are in the minority.

You may even find yourself on the wrong side of what is commonly understood in many places.

edit: you may not be taking into account that some personal attacks are acceptable and some not so accepting its unacceptable towards a minority culture doesn't mean you are accepting its not frequently okay to do it.

If the perspective of the target counted, then the attacker would lose the power advantage that comes from having a third-party decide what is and is not a personal attack, while not giving any weight to the target's perspective.

In other words, whining and victim playing are used against the target when they assert they have been personally attacked and the authority on the matter arbitrarily disagrees.

Is a definition hidden in the last 100 posts? I thought this was an effort to redefine, and I was wondering what the working definition was.

But if you don't feel like providing it then that's fine. Carry on.

It sometimes seems based on mr.wookies mood and political or personal opinion of the attacker or the attacked, regardless of what he claims other wise.

This is how arbitrary modding is exploitable and why specifically defined/objectively applied standards are more equally just for any user.

What conclusion would you draw from the evidence? Or is it that one simply cannot be sexist therefor any evidence of sexism can never reach the conclusion that a person is sexist?

You just cant be that specific. Even if a moderator decided to adopt some framework there has to be a judgement and that's the job of the forum moderator unless its a site issue. We can't have a vote every time and language is too complex to automate the decision.

There are different situations.

Case 1:
I call someone a fuzzwozzle as a gibberish term that I don't think is a big deal. They tell me that fuzzwozzle is a horrendous insult to them. To continue to call them a fuzzwozzle would probably be a personal attack and I think most people would agree. My original post was based on ignorance on my part.

Case 2: I call someone who likes the Maple Leafs a Maple Leafs fan because they make a comment about liking the Toronto Maple Leafs. They tell me that in their culture calling someone a 'fan' is a huge insult. I can explain that that's not true in my culture or by the commonly accepted definition of 'fan' and that they shouldn't get offended because I'm using my meaning. But if they don't want to accept that, its not my problem and it doesn't make what I'm saying a personal attack.

Case 3:
I tell someone that refusing to let women drive is sexist. They tell me that their culture doesn't think women should be allowed to drive so that I'm making a personal attack based on their culture. In this case I'm using a commonly accepted definition of sexist. It's not my job to change that definition to appease some sexist culture.

People are still making the calls, but are using clear guidelines which are known and published. In my experience 'attack the post, not the poster' is fairly easy to determine in most cases. This is slightly more difficult, due to language size and flexibility, than making a rules judgement in a game.

The folks who expect other people to their mental gymnastics to conflate attacking the post with attacking the poster are likely just full of themselves and want to be abled to bend the rules.

Is "you are a statist" a personal attack?

I think the people saying it think it is - but I don't take it as one.

You are "insert anything that could be perceived as negative" is a personal attack. Come on guys you know I'm right!

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

Maybe you should go suck dicks for crack you bitch-ass autist pussy.

Am I doing it right?

LANGUAGE SIZE AND FLEXIBILITY YOU SAY?

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

You seem to believe and repeat lies. It makes you look bad when the truth is here in this forum.

Word of advice: Don't trust Dids.

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

Fixed some language blind spots in my post.

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

There are but we are not be far apart.

Case 1) and 2) are similar but differ in what happens when the misunderstanding is clarified - that's decided by whether the clarified situation is commonly understood as a personal attack. It would be in case 1) possibly not in case 2).

The only problem you and I have as far as I can see is if you insist you can use a word by its common definition if even in the clarified situations its commonly understood as a personal attack.

case 3) we agree on. There's no misunderstanding here so its just covered by the standard of what is commonly understood to be a personal attack.

The formal version (still a work in progress) becomes:
A post is considered a personal attack if:
a) if its commonly taken as a personal attack by readers
b) the response of a reader is commonly understood to show they took it
as a personal attack because they misunderstood AND

its not clarified or corrected, OR
the clarified situation is commonly understood as a personal attack

or we can still use the simplified version
"A post is considered a personal attack if its commonly taken as a personal attack by readers"

Is it an attack?

anyway its covered imo by whether its commonly taken as a personal attack by readers.