User blog comment:Obi the LEGO Fan/Clarification of UCS/@comment-30952134-20161220175959/@comment-4845243-20161220192822

Well, the more accurate statement would be that this comment is simply one user's opinion on how the policy should be interpreted. Your opinion is incorrect, as you have missed some key points. It is clear to me, however, that it would be good for the policy to be rewritten in certain areas since you and a few other people have similarly misconstrued the policy.

Here's why your interpretation is incorrect.

The policy you quoted does not say you say something offensive, that's your first mistake. Rather, it says that if something possibly (the policy says "might") construed as a personal attack elicits no response and is not harmful in any way (no one is offended or hurt, it's not disruptive), then you don't have to take action. This is because although there existed a possibility of that thing being a personal attack, it turned out to not be (most likely it was non-hostile teasing or sarcasm) a personal attack at all.

Your second big mistake is in assuming this blog deals with things no one finds offensive. If you bothered to read the entire blog in detail, you would notice that the things these people said did in fact offend people. If the comments made had not been seen as problematic by users, this blog would not have been made (because it wouldn't have been brought to my attention).

And finally, your third mistake is that you overlook what "disruptive" means and you also ignore what "don't create a problem where none exists" means. Some actions are inherently disruptive to our community. It is quite clear that the bigoted comments of the users mentioned in the blog were disruptive, and caused many problems. Moreover, some actions and words are inherently a "problem" without moderators needing to take action. It is a serious problem when people think they can make racist jokes, use transphobic slurs, mock queer people, and make fun of people with disabilities. That is a problem regardless of what mods do - in fact mods make it worse by not acting.

For all of these reasons, your interpretation is incorrect. The policies you quoted (which I wrote many years ago) do not contradict this blog, it's just that you have apparently misconstrued the meaning of the policy and overlooked some nuances of my argument in this blog.