Yes, but it's also a largely avoidable thing.
Sorry, I don't think I sufficiently connected the dots.
Could they, in theory, avoid the unfairness on you? Yes. But, as a practical matter, attempting to do so may not be in their best interests. If there are enough jerks, or the jerks are really bad, then taking the time to determine each and every case becomes a losing proposition. Then, it is not irrational or impractical to expect folks to have to demonstrate a certain level of goodwill before cutting them slack.
Basically, jerks in the world have taught people to be pretty wary. If, in practice, 90% (or some high percentage) of the time people who start out like jerks turn out to actually be jerks, they'll have learned to not bother with the 10%. They are unlikely to change just because you feel it is unfair.
And to be honest, we get new users all the time who have no problem quickly coming to terms with how EN World works. You guys are kind of an anomaly in that regard, and I suspect your unity of identity as OTTers actually worked against you in this.
If one's first interaction is to be branded a jerkwad for something they said in jest and to have that label placed on them because of an assumption that was made about them then it's hard to see why they'd believe that the place in question was one where civility was truly the goal, no?
Well, here we get to a pertinent point - how much do they care what you think? See above - yes, they may be branding a decent person as a jerk. But, if the odds are against that, then they won't be too worried about it.
What the people that do assume the worst of people need to understand is that that assumption says quite a bit about them, too, and that what it says is most certainly not 'I'm all about civil discourse'.
If you really are all about fairness - If how you behave doesn't say what they think it does, it probably follows that how they behave doesn't necessarily say what you think it does, either. Two way street, and all that.
You tell us what it doesn't say, to you. You don't tell us what it does say, to you. That's leaving things open to interpretation, you know. Given the context, is that what you really want to do?
I posit that what it really says is that they've been burned too often and too badly before to make being open to such initial salvos seem reasonable, to them. That's not inconsistent with being about civility, it simply means they have a higher burden-of-proof threshold than you'd like.
Unfortunately what I've seen so far has indicated that they tend to think something, refuse to verify their assumption and then put you on ignore. Not ... civil. At all.
Dude, do note we have *thousands* of users. How many have actually done this? Are you sure you're not painting with too broad a brush.
In addition, while you may not like it, there's nothing uncivil about choosing who you want to talk to, based on your own reasons. If they find your style unpleasant, for whatever reason, they don't owe it to you to talk with you.