But E_S, honestly, how could you not include such protections as part of overall policy? Otherwise, you get into the slippery slope of "hate speech" simply being a matter of speech that one disagrees with. Even if that's not true, the perception would apply. If we're examining something like the usage of "sweetheart" in the sense that it's chauvinist and rude, which it is, it can easily be inserted under what flaming and/or baiting is, with just an updated outlook on it. But you can't literally potentially ban someone for using "sweetheart," but then in the same thread, someone else posts "You stupid simpleton, your god is dead, and you're delusional for believing in an imaginary power.." and it's allowed to stand as merely a commentary on religion. And we're using religion as only an example, there are other such protections that would all apply-such as LAJ including a lack of religion, which is just as valid. Any such policy such as this will give trade offs with open communication vs protections of classes. My summary would be that any time someone uses someone's personal characteristics to attack them, it should probably be a violation of the TOS.