Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Anger]

SE's GM actions are determined by the internal policy of that private japanese company.
If their orders are to put a strike on anyone that have been reported by someone else saying they got offended, they will do it. Simply because they very likely don't want to lose their job. Yes, GM also have a morale on their own, but orders from management take priority. (And btw, their morale is almost certainly different than yours.)

We don't need your definitions, or the definitions coming from a foreign wikipedia page.
We need SE's definitions.

If you try to enter a private club with clothes you find acceptable (or that your society/culture finds acceptable), they can still deny you from going in because of their own definition of what's actually an acceptable dress code for their private club.
... Which is why we are simply asking SE to clearly define what is their dress code so they let us in... Or at least don't kick us out, if I was to use my private club analogy again.

So far, SE is just saying "please dress up appropriatly, otherwise we'll punish you", without even saying what "appropriatly" means in their eyes.
We don't know what their tolerence is. And a wikipedia page will not help us find out.
I'll repeat myself, but after 84 pages quite a lot of people still didn't get it: don't bother with what you think are objective definitions -they are actually subjective, btw. The only relevant definitions are SE's ones -which are also subjective and have not been clearly disclosed.

Tl;dr: These definitions are worthless as wikipedia's definitions might very well not be the same as the ones from a private japanese company. We just know that SE wants to be involved in order to make a better community. But we don't even know what's a "better community" for them, and how far they want to go - and that's the most important thing.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

[Gmasotti]

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Dear customer, we regret to inform you that your account has been temporarily suspended due to a violation of our TOS, more specifically, you just unilaterally rejected someone else's opinion. We would like to explain to you in more detail where the perceived slight was, but as it is indeed "perceived" and we have not appropriately explained it in the TOS either I guess that's that. Please have a nice day and see you in 3 days.

[Anger]

Dear customer, we regret to inform you that your account has been temporarily suspended due to a violation of our TOS, more specifically, you just unilaterally rejected someone else's opinion. We would like to explain to you in more detail where the perceived slight was, but as it is indeed "perceived" and we have not appropriately explained it in the TOS either I guess that's that. Please have a nice day and see you in 3 days.

Are you impersonating SE staff? How am I your customer?

[Kallera]

Are you impersonating SE staff? How am I your customer?

Looks more like she is showing how easily you can get on the wrong side of the new rules with just a short post. You completely disregarded another user's opinion with no further explanation.

[Gmasotti]

Looks more like she is showing how easily you can get on the wrong side of the new rules with just a short post. You completely disregarded another user's opinion with no further explanation.

This is precisely what worries me: the simple fact that a post that was quite obviously a jest was taking seriously and needed to be explained in the first place tells you loads about the potential for abusing these vague rules. I'll probably get banned from the forums for "impersonating SE staff".

[whiskeybravo]

I'll probably get banned from the forums for "impersonating SE staff".

I've been loosely following this thread since the changes were announced. If anything it is a slight relief that the thread is still active and hasn't been shut down, so there might be a sliver of hope that SE is inclined to lean on the side of civil discourse being an important function of any society. This is their platform, and of course as such it is within their right to regulate as they see fit, but there should be a clear line between what is considered harassment and genuine public discourse.