by Marcuse » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:01 am
In my view, and speaking only partially with my moderator hat on, I'd classify a personal insult as a slur directed at another user. I'm way more likely to look at moderating something in the context of an argument where an insult is directed at someone while in the process of disagreeing with them, than I am a casual reference that appears to be no more than a term of "affectionate reference".
For example:
"Well everyone knows you're a raging pants-dropper" might be okay in the context of a casual conversation with no opposition. The same comment in the context of a heated disagreement about a topic two people feel strongly about would come off like an insult. In most situations, we try to look at the context of the comment in question and try to see why it may or may not be considered an insult.
Unfortunately it's not exactly easy to define a hard and fast rule for that, but my suggestion for avoiding this would be to avoid them in debates where you're arguing against other people, because it looks like ad hominem. In a casual or non-debate discussion, if the other person is okay with it, we have no reason to look at moderating that.
I think the sticking point is that you're not using these terms with an intention of using ad hominem to win an argument, you're using them in a conversational fashion because you're familiar with the people you're talking to. The problem is that we can't judge your intentions (or anyone else's) with any degree of accuracy, nor can other users. If someone finds himself on the receiving end of an interesting appellation in the midst of debate, this can appear as an insult, and I usually feel we have to moderate that.
That's just one moderator's opinion, but I hope that helps.