No such claim of any such "right" exists within The Agreement.
A lie. It is called the 'troll' provision, the right to call someone a troll and a disruptor at will. Patrick Henry held up the agreement for days to have it inserted - and thus destroy the agreement from within.
[Ich:] No such claim of any such "right" exists within The Agreement.
[Gore3000:] A lie. It is called the 'troll' provision, the right to call someone a troll and a disruptor at will.
Hardly "at will". As written into the agreement, it was to be used only after a poster had repeatedly violated the agreement and refused to reform even after several other specific steps were taken, including a gentle reminder. It was not there to allow the "right" to "insult people", it was there to provide a mechanism for chronic violators of the civility agreement to be recognized as such and treated accordingly (i.e. ignored).
Under the agreement the only people who could be "insulted" by being labeled a troll or disruptor would be those who were, well, being trolls or disruptors -- and who had refused invitations to stop doing so.
Patrick Henry held up the agreement for days to have it inserted
...because the agreement needed some sort of mechanism to deal with those who purposely refused to abide by it. That mechanism was to 1) ask them to reform, 2) identify them as the disruptors that they were, 3) ignore them.
This proposal passed by a majority vote of the folks who chose to participate in the drafting.
- and thus destroy the agreement from within.
I find it interesting that the clause on how to identify and ignore disruptors was the sticking point for most of the creationists and none of the evolutionists.