Thank you, dang, I appreciate the concrete guidelines. I was actually thinking of emailing you over this.<p>I promise you I will try to behave as you have proposed here. I think those are fair guidelines. In fact I very much appreciate your laying them down clearly like that. If the &quot;no negativity&quot; policy were as well fleshed-out as you just did here I think it would be more helpful.<p>I will abide by your rules because I want to keep posting here. But if I abide by the rules and you still detach my threads as off-topic, then it will have been an unfair deal in my opinion.<p>I&#x27;d be curious to know, respectfully, if you chided the user to whom I was replying, since what they said can easily be construed as instigation:<p>&gt; No, it&#x27;s not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the &quot;better&quot; brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out...<p>&quot;we all know how that turned out&quot; DOT DOT DOT is instigation and we all know he&#x27;s rubbing the Holocaust on everyone&#x27;s faces without spelling it out. To me that is a foul silencing tactic and it needs to be called out on. That is what I attempted to do when I made my &quot;carry on&quot; remark, after having substantially and politely fleshed out the topic in that same reply.<p>So as you can see, from my end your enforcement sometimes looks biased.<p>EDIT: In fact I&#x27;d like clarification on this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10381398" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10381398</a><p>Their post amounts to nothing more than &quot;Intelligence research is actually 150 years old and it ended with the Holocaust&quot;.<p>Now what do you call that? Isn&#x27;t that snarky flamebait? It looks like it to me. Shouldn&#x27;t that claim be toned down a little? Shouldn&#x27;t it be substantiated a little more?<p>I want to respect you but for that you will have to uphold your vetting standards equally amongst all players.