General site rule re. Ad Hominem. The user being attacked has a suspended Reddit account, and was unaware that his comments from 10 months ago would be visible. Rather than respond to that user's points, which aren't noteworthy as trolling or problematic in any way, another user - without being asked to do so - attacked the user in question, not for his comment, but by saying that he's mentally ill, and by somehow locating that users comments form 10 months ago. The user's comments 10 months ago are unrelated to the discussion where the initial attacks occured, and then became the subject of a post devoted to attacking the user. This is against the general Saidit rules - as low on the POD - known as Ad Hominem. Although I am happy to set up the legal arguments for this, as noted here, I also appreciate that DAR permits Ad Hominem responses and posts. I don't wish to change DAR, or to recommend a change. I am merely pointing out that these attacks are unethical. Regarding rule 3: as we see here and elsewhere, it is easily abused by those tho have questionable or thin evidence for their witch-hunts. As we are all supposed to be anonymous, questions of our identity should never be tolerated (unless anonymity is unimportant at DAR). The DAR rule that's broken here is Rule 2: " A form of ad hominem attack, tone policing is criticism of people or groups that express emotion." Hence - 2 rules are broken here. Not that this is terribly important in the contect of DAR, but this is my main point about the rules.