Rules of The BBQ Pit

[Esprix]

Topic: Please re-post and/or clarify the posting rules of The Pit.

Background: A comment one user made about a user's screen name was recently deleted from a post in a thread here in The Pit. The Administrator deemed it "gratuitous" and "unnecessary." The comment was not directly germane to the OP, and even the poster admitted it was a "cheap shot," but the recipient of the comment publicly stated they were not offended in any way by the comment.

My view: Deleting comments that are "unnecessary" seems invasive to me considering the nature of many of the flame posts here in The Pit - after all, the SDMB itself says this is the place to do it. Allowing personal assaults/flames on someone, but deleting an "unnecessary" comment that isn't nearly as scorching, confuses the hell out of me over what is and is not allowed.

I know Ed clarified the rules not too long ago, but I'm asking that they either be re-posted or clarified again by him, the Administrators and/or the Moderators. I do not want to break any rules in the future and end up getting censured or banned.

Esprix

[manhattan]

You know what? Shut up.

No one was censured or banned. No one was threatened with being censured or banned. A tiny snippet of a lengthy flame was removed because an acutal flesh and blood human being thought it was over the line given the context.

To try to blow that up into some kind of holy war is silly, vindictive and candidly, too time consuming. It was a fucking edit, for ghod's sake.

Here’re a couple of newsflashes, direct from the actual, real world

1) Moderators and administrators are real, actual flesh and blood human people.

2) Moderators and administrators read the boards a lot, and over time gain a sense of things.

3) From time to time, we use this thing called "judgment," in which we’ll make a decision based on context as much as the actual content of a post.

Now from time to time, moderators and administrators will make a decision with which some will disagree. Heck, sometimes we'll even make a decision that is wrong (but not here). Too fucking bad. In this case, a tiny snippet was deleted from a lengthy comment because it seemed too cheap a shot for what was essentially a one-way flame war. Again, too fucking bad. Here are your choices.

Get over it, and move on. This would be my personal recommendation. YMMV

Don’t get over it, and leave the board quietly for an unmoderated forum where automatons moderate. They exist, and some people find them preferable. Best of luck.

Don’t get over it, and leave the board in a huff. Bummer, but your call.

Don’t get over it and whine and whine and whine.


Your call.

[Needs2know]

May I add something? I do hope I can. Moderators using their own personal judgement is fine, that is after all what they are here for, and theirs is a thankless job quite often. But it has been my experience, on other boards (I have not observed any of this here yet, and may not given the fact that I do not read every post. And have a relatively hard time keeping up with everyone.) that moderators also have their "favorites" among the regular posters and will oft times defend them or uphold them during an altercation regardless of their guilt or innocence. This is the reason that I have stopped visiting other boards in the past. This might not be a concern for some but if you happen to be on the recieving end of this kind of treatment it is frustrating. Everyone wants to be treated fairly, although we all know that we are not necessarily entitled to be, especially on an open forum. After all, moderators and posters are only human. (I hope.)

Needs2know

[Esprix]

manhattan, I'm appalled. The OT was a legitimate question - I could have just as easily posted it in ATMB, but chose to post it here since it's more relevant to this forum.

I am not debating whether or not the moderators are doing their job well. Do I disagree with Tuba's call? Yes. But I would never argue that she didn't have the right to do it, and I would never argue that she undo it, and I would never argue that it is her call and hers alone. Let me emphasize that I think the moderators of this board are top-notch, including you, but if I see something I think is in error, I'm going to say so, and nobody said they or anyone else has to listen to me. I've stated my opinion, and I'm willing to leave it at that.

All that aside, I think her decision does cast question upon the rules of this forum, and that's why I asked for a clarification. Is it out of line to ask what the rules are? I'd have thought y'all would be supportive of that.

I swear to you I am not trying to "blow this up into a holy war" by questioning Tuba's judgement in this particular case. I just want some clarification, that's all - what is and is not allowed in The Pit?

Esprix

[ultress]

I agree with Manny, drop it. If you want to see the rules, then go back to the past threads where the rules are listed.

[aha]

I agree with Manny, drop it. If you want to see the rules, then go back to the past threads where the rules are listed.


I agree with Ultress. Always

[Yue Han]

Esprix, dear heart, if this were the first topic about this, sure, the topic would be unremarkable. But context is always important.

And this is the fifth thread, off the top of my head, that features you and/or Otto bitching/complaining/asking innocent questions about the edit.

People always say, "If you don't want to see it, or you don't care, don't read the thread." And that's good advice. But when you drag it all over the Board, or even all over the Pit, it gets hard to avoid.

Give it a rest, or at least confine it to one or two threads.

--John

[Esprix]

Gee, aren't I the bad guy today... :rolleyes:

I've already posted this thread, so I'll just wait and see if other moderators other than manhattan reply. If they do, maybe I'll get the answer I'm seeking, and if they don't, well, shows me, I guess.

Esprix

Yes, but--it's not because you're gay. Okay?

:D

[Rousseau]

You want to know what I think? I think that some people take this board a wee bit too seriously. If I tried to call somebody a whore on an Internet message board, and some moderator edited me, the world would just keep on spinning. If I saw someone else get edited as he tried to call somebody a whore on an Internet message board, I'd just move the hell on.

Then again, I don't have a lifetime SDMB average of better than 10 posts per day. If I did, I suppose I might get a little up in arms about such a thing. And then I'd realize how stupid I was being, and take a vacation back to the real world for a little while.

[Weirddave]

But it has been my experience, on other boards (I have not observed any of this here yet, and may not given the fact that I do not read every post. And have a relatively hard time keeping up with everyone.) that moderators also have their "favorites" among the regular posters and will oft times defend them or uphold them during an altercation regardless of their guilt or innocence

I have never seen this kind of personal favoritism from the mods here. You may be pleased to know that you have found a board where it dosen't exist, AFAIK.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tuba- now do I the "free gratituious insult" card?:D <--Joke

[/hijack]

[vandal]

Jeez, just because a guy asks for the rules of the BBQ Pit, everyone yells at him. I think asking for the rules is a legitimate question.

[Thought]

I second the vandal, as well as Esprix in this case.

In reference to SINsapple's little OP about people being shown the door. I think everyone is getting a little to huffy.

First of all, asking about the edit is way overboard. Second of all, it IS a legitamate question.

Why not a real answer? Is that too hard, or are the mods just going to be high up on the mountain and infalible?

I'm know they take the job seriously and they seem to do a great job. MOST of the time. I see from time to time, things I would handle a bit differently.

So, could we get an answer for this question??

Good luck with the moderating!!

[Yue Han]

vandal:

Go read my post above about context again. Get a dictionary to look up the words you don't know this time.

This question, in and of itself, is not a terrible thing. But it was asked in the context of a week and 5 threads of bitching/moaning/asking innocent but pointed questions by Otto and/or Esprix.

Thought:

Here's a rant that Veb posted in another thread. It didn't make much sense there, but it was a good rant and it is appropriate here.

TVeblen:
this place owes us dick. Don't confuse your emotional investment with ownership. The mods *give* explanations, sometimes belated or ambiguously worded to spare cut slack for posters--real posters, real people--who crossed lines and then regretted it. But pressing, demanding, insisting on "rights" when explanations have been offered is just plain presumptuous, crass and wrong.

[Fanny May]

I came to read the "Rules of The BBQ Pit", but I see they aren't here.

Are they somewhere? Or don't I really want to know?

[Doug Bowe]

Any editing of any post, no matter how well thought out, will be subjective. Shortly after that edit threads will be launched complaining about censorship. Someone might even introduce a "poll" asking others to vote on the edit.
Who says this ain't a democracy?

I don't think The Pit has a style book.

[Silo]

Esprix, I like you as a poster, but enough bringing up old threads, troll talk, and board/admin/mod questions um k.

[evilbeth]

I just know I am going to regret this but here goes.

I think you guys have overreacted attacking Esprix for his post. The "offending" post by Otto was edited. Otto then started a thread called, "Why was I edited?" the basic official responses seem to be "because you were--sometimes we do that"(And no, it's not a double standard, you crossed the line. I've edited and deleted other insults, and I've closed a thread or two when it's gotten too hot.- and "you were wrong and that's it"Otto, you were out of line. You took a cheap shot, as others have noted. Get over it, and don't whine about it in other threads.-with no real explanation as to why this post was different than some others.

In that thread, Esprix questioned the edit as to whether it was offensive to the "victim" (in his mind, I assume, acceptable) or whether it was arbitrary just because a mod thought it was bad (in his mind, questionable, to say the least):If peaches complained loudly and took very great offense to this, then she should have directed her ire at Otto, and then maybe had him request that it be removed. But if this was an arbitrary decision by TubaDiva, then I question that decision. True, he was a little insulting to Lynn by saying she was sensitive over her name but only after Lynn had responded to honest questions with "get over it" and "don't whine".

I hope the anger displayed to Esprix over this thread is a reaction to having more than one thread dedicated to finding out answer to the "arbitrary" question. If not, then there is a problem. If so, then fine. Just calmly say, "We already have a thread that addresses this, we do not need another." and lock it. ("But then they'll whine about a thread being locked..."--maybe. But then we would have a clear explanation for the reasons behind an action rather than saying, we just do it that way.)

Anyway, we have added many new members since the "rules" were modified for the Pit. "Don't be a jerk" no longer covers it. It might not be the world's worst idea to clarify the rules again for the newbies.

[manhattan]

Fair enough, Evilbeth. I thought I replied to the OP. I still think I replied to the OP, because here's the thing: there was an edit but no censure, no warning, no banning, no threaten to ban, nothing beyond the edit. So there is not a need to re-recite any rules.

Here's what I said: No one was censured or banned. No one was threatened with being censured or banned. A tiny snippet of a lengthy flame was removed because an actual flesh and blood human being thought it was over the line given the context.Those who are directly involved and who have read and thought carefully about this sentence already understand.

Despite our preference not to, we edit things all the time, from copyrighted stuff to flames that strike us at the time as gratuitous to personal info about other members to other stuff that we'd never even imagine would come up but somehow does. It's not a huge deal (but it is something of a hassle for us-- we do not do this by whim if only for software-related reasons). Otto was not (and is not) threatened with banishment because of it, and neither Esprix nor Otto was threatened because of the incessant whining about it.

So once and for all, here's the deal as I understand it (subject of course to both my bosses and to exceptions that I've not currently contemplated): As far as I know, no contributing member has ever been banned over a single comment. If one's comment is edited one can either "get it" right off the bat or email us and get an explanation. If the editing is accompanied by an in-thread warning, that's slightly more serious and one should seriously think about why the edit occurred and try to avoid repetitions. If editing occurs too frequently and/or a moderator/administrator has sent an email about it/them, than one has entered dangerous territory. If after all of that one continues to do things that get edited, then perhaps the offender possesses too much ignorance to be stamped out on this message board and their continued participation at the site is not a good idea for them or for us. But until one gets to that point, starting 8 Billion threads to whine is a waste of the poster's time, of ours, and candidly of yours.

Trust me on this: Aside from the odd troll or spammer, we do not ban people without adequate warning. We do not warn people without reason. From time to time we edit a flame that might seem to others to be relatively mild, but we do so with knowledge both of the context of the flame and knowledge of the people involved. But making the leap of edit=censure=road-to-banning is a false assumption.

Now this naturally brings up the question of "Why did I come down so hard on Esprix?" First of all, I'll fess up that I was annoyed to hear about it in at least four different threads. More importantly, to tell the truth, it was because I like him. Normally he does not play the role of whiny petulant child. It was my hope that my little slap upside his head would return some sense to him and send him back to the business of asking, answering, debating and sharing that we have in mind as the goals of this message board. I still hold out high hopes that this will be the result.

[evilbeth]

Thanks, manny! That was what I was hoping for. Just a little background on how the editing process works in the pit (aside from "We edit. Deal with it.") You are a prince among men! If anyone complains after your last post, you have my permission ;) to slap them upside the head!

I'm in the Pit?

Okay. Putz.

[PunditLisa]

My 2 cents: I'm sure this has been thought out by minds wiser than my own, but when the moderators/administrators start editing content, you give an illusion that you have "control" of the board. And sometimes, in this litigous society, it's better to say "We don't censor ANYTHING." or "We only edit out the 'f' word." than to censor based on something subjective like tone.

It's like owning a parking lot. If you take their keys, you automatically assume more liability than if you don't. It's my opinion that you shouldn't edit anything here, but rather put up signs that say, "Post at your own risk, you thin-skinned, lily livered bastards."

:)

[Esprix]

Rousseau pontificated:

Then again, I don't have a lifetime SDMB average of better than 10 posts per day. If I did, I suppose I might get a little up in arms about such a thing. And then I'd realize how stupid I was being, and take a vacation back to the real world for a little while.

Since I don't quite understand your obsession with me and how many posts I've made to date, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but the pole stuck up your ass would prevent it.

Esprix

[Esprix]

weirddave wrote:

I have never seen this kind of personal favoritism from the mods here.

For the record, I agree with you here.

Thought wrote:

I'm know they [our moderators] take the job seriously and they seem to do a great job. MOST of the time. I see from time to time, things I would handle a bit differently.

I also agree with you here, Thought.

Yue Han, my apologies for posting my thoughts in all the threads that addressed this issue. The fact that so many threads cropped up is what prompted me to ask for a clarification here. If it helps you any, think of this thread as out of context of those previous, and then re-read the OT. As TVeblen said, I realize this place doesn't owe me squat, but that doesn't mean I don't want to continue to participate.

Fanny May asked:

I came to read the "Rules of The BBQ Pit", but I see they aren't here.

Are they somewhere? Or don't I really want to know?[/quote]

You know what? You're right. The Rules of the Pit were posted in the "New rules for the BBQ Pit" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=9484) thread. In it, this was posted:

3. ... We will once in a while decide that a poster or group of posters has gone too far. Unprovoked, go-for-the-balls personal abuse, for example, makes us twitchy...

4. You'll appreciate that it's impossible to enforce this policy uniformly. Different people help moderate the Pit at different times and some of us are more tolerant than others...

7. The preceding are guidelines only...

8. Don't get paranoid about this. We won't warn or ban people simply for disagreeing with other posters or with us in strong terms. Routine flame wars, name-calling, creative vulgarity, etc., generally won't get us ticked off--and if they do you'll hear about it first. We just don't want our users to feel, after reading the Pit, like they have to take a bath.

In that very same thread way back on 3/27/00 I questioned this, as the vagueness of it made me "twitchy." The great Ed Zotti's response?

Read and learn, bubba. There are lots of threads in the Pit. Most of them do not have warnings in them. While not an infallible guide, this may reasonably be taken as an indication that we did not find the contents objectionable. Another good rule of thumb is to ask oneself: if I were to say this to someone in person, would it likely result in my getting the shit kicked out of me? This should keep you out of most jams.

Well, I've read, and I suppose I've learned. Still don't like it, and it still makes me nervous. (And I know nobody cares if what I think, so please don't flame me for stating my own opinion.)

Just a couple more things, and then I think we can put an end to this, at least as far as I'm concerned.

evilbeth, thank you for summing up things for me. How come they listen to you and not me? :( (Kidding!)

... Esprix questioned the edit as to whether it was offensive to the "victim" (in his mind, I assume, acceptable) or whether it was arbitrary just because a mod thought it was bad (in his mind, questionable, to say the least)

That's right - I questioned the edit. That's it. Nothing more. I didn't demand Tuba's removal. I didn't threaten to leave. I didn't start a petition. I didn't threaten legal action. I simply questioned her judgement in this one instance when the subject was brought up. That's it. And because the answer was "it was a cheap shot and crossed the line," that seemed too amorphous and I wasn't sure how that fit in with the Rules of the Pit, which is self-described as the place to flame. So I asked for a clarification. That's all. No incitement to riot. No name-calling. Just asked for a rules check. Nothing more. It was everyone else that seemed to pick up my ball and run with it.

manhattan wrote:

I thought I replied to the OP. I still think I replied to the OP, because here's the thing: there was an edit but no censure, no warning, no banning, no threaten to ban, nothing beyond the edit. So there is not a need to re-recite any rules.

I'm not quite sure why you're obsessing over this "no one got banned" thing, as it had nothing to do with the OP, which was simply asking for a clarification of the rules (which, at this point, I've gotten). Was it that I ended it by saying I didn't want to get censured or banned? By saying that I didn't mean to imply that anyone had been or would be because of this incident. Sorry for the confusion, if that's what prompted your vehemence on the issue - my intention was just not wanting to break the rules, that's all, and if the rules aren't clear, then I don't know when I'm breaking them.

Now this naturally brings up the question of "Why did I come down so hard on Esprix?" First of all, I'll fess up that I was annoyed to hear about it in at least four different threads. More importantly, to tell the truth, it was because I like him. Normally he does not play the role of whiny petulant child. It was my hope that my little slap upside his head would return some sense to him and send him back to the business of asking, answering, debating and sharing that we have in mind as the goals of this message board. I still hold out high hopes that this will be the result.

Fine, sue me - I had a bad day. Between this thread and being jumped on for stating obvious truths to a certain soon-to-be-wed couple, I was feeling a bit beleagured last week. The relaxing weekend helped me chill out a bit. (Real life has been stressful as well, so reading this didn't help matters - my problem, not yours, though.) However, jumping down my throat not only didn't answer my question, but it pissed me off and made me look at you a little differently.

Bottom line: After having re-read the rules, and after reading this thread and hearing from Tuba elsewhere, I suppose it all answers my question, so I humbly withdraw the OT as it has been answered, whether I like it or not.

Esprix

[hawthorne]

Your post Esprix linked to the rules the newbie requested, but that none of us had been arsed to supply. The rest indicated that you'd taken a breath and are prepared to get on, even if the past few days have not been ideal. Good. Hosed down Gay Guy II (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=24008). Twas a touch long though ;)

picmr

[vanilla]

define "truths"....nah forget it.