Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-29-2019, 12:24 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
The basic theme is that one should be prepared for offensive posts when one enters the Pit and not complain that a snowball hit your head. One should still expect that no one will throw rocks.

The Pit is here to contain the nastiness to where it can be avoided if so desired, and maybe to reality check our upset. A Pit turning on the OP is such a check and happens with some frequency.

But again, not rocks.

There is no valid insult that include bringing in real world family issues or real world mental health issues.

Comments that would possibly be slander if associated with a real name, like stating someone molests children, are way over the line.

Personally I would love to see less boring angry venting and more entertaining invective when posters need to go off, but that I know is not a realistic hope.
  #52  
Old 11-29-2019, 12:55 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
ALSO that said, you’re free to report margin’s [what you appear to be implying] “infraction,” should the inspiration strike you, D’Anconia...
You're not very bright, are you? Why on earth would I report a post in the PIT, where (almost) anything goes?
  #53  
Old 11-29-2019, 01:05 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You're not very bright, are you? Why on earth would I report a post in the PIT, where (almost) anything goes?
Just spitballing here, but is it because you're a prissy dumbfuck who affects sanctimony in lieu of wit?

Of course, I doubt you'd actually report a Pit post; just tongue-cluckingly imply that it would be nice if someone else did because it would be the moral thing to do or some such crap, but no-one would because this place is such a liberal echo-mind hive-chamber.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #54  
Old 11-29-2019, 01:08 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You're not very bright, are you? Why on earth would I report a post in the PIT, where (almost) anything goes?
Well there was this,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
{...} I placed this thread in the Pit, because I want people who post regularly in this forum to see and respond to it. However, I don't want to see fighting or insults in here. I intend to moderate this discussion as if it were in ATMB. Please keep this in mind. {...}
but I can see how you might have missed it in the OP.

CMC fnord!

Last edited by crowmanyclouds; 11-29-2019 at 01:08 AM.
  #55  
Old 11-29-2019, 01:48 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,432
I cheerfully admit to missing it, too, or at least letting it slip my mind. In any case, trying to "reign" the Pit in is a bad idea and I register my disagreement with the suggestion.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #56  
Old 11-29-2019, 07:46 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
For your amusement:
The Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
Remember all those times we said, "hey, why don't you take that outside?" Well, here's where you go. <g>

No, really. This is where you go for all those verbal fistfights. When a thread veers from debate and/or discussion into personal attack, sneering insults, and "Yo Mommas," y'all should step outside to this thread.

Remember, although AOL's Terms of Service do not usually apply and we will give you SOME latitude, this is no back alley and you will be expected to be if not civil at least semi-reasonable. Pure evil and/or rants won't fly -- unless they're really entertaining.
Ed's Pit Rules:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Zotti
No trolling

By trolling, we mean posting of inflammatory comments solely to get a rise out of people. If we feel your primary goal as a poster is to make people mad, you'll quickly find yourself on the road to banning. On the flip side, the fact that a poster consistently makes you mad doesn't automatically make them a troll.
  #57  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,244
I agree that insults toward the posters themselves are fine, provided they're not aiming at a sensitive area such as past trauma or mental health. That's why I felt Shodan had crossed the line. I also did not report it, but I felt like it was potentially mod note/mod warning worthy, even though it was in the Pit. Huey Freeman's attacks on Shodan's children, even though they were directly impacted, fit into the same category because there's no other purpose for the post other than to cause psychological distress (Huey's posts toward Guinastasia were actually worse, IMO).
  #58  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:24 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You're not very bright, are you? Why on earth would I report a post in the PIT, where (almost) anything goes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Just spitballing here, but is it because you're a prissy dumbfuck who affects sanctimony in lieu of wit?

Of course, I doubt you'd actually report a Pit post; just tongue-cluckingly imply that it would be nice if someone else did because it would be the moral thing to do or some such crap, but no-one would because this place is such a liberal echo-mind hive-chamber.
[Moderating]
Both of you knock it off. D'Anconia, of you don't have anything better to do than snipe at other posters, don't post in this thread.

No warnings this time.
[/Moderating]
  #59  
Old 12-01-2019, 12:45 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,660
I'm all for a fairly free-wheeling hands off approach - within limits.

Even when we are calling each other all sorts of things, there are limits.

Some people don't know limits. They can be told off, treated in kind, or warned until they get with the program.

The worse ones are those who know but don't give a damn (and keep getting away with crossing the line) or those who don't give a damn but are expert at dancing all over the line (and getting away with it).

I think we all know a troll or a piece of garbage when we see one. The ones who do nasty egregious shit on a regular basis need (in my opinion) to be dealt with quicker and more ruthlessly sometimes.
  #60  
Old 12-01-2019, 02:49 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Calling other posters "pedophiles"
This is something else that gets brought up a lot, that I'm not personally bothered by. (For the record, yes, actual pedophiles bother me, but I don't see saying "You're a pedophile" as necessarily worse than, "You're a motherfucker.")
Would you have posted Listen up, pedophiles!?
  #61  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:13 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Would you have posted Listen up, pedophiles!?
No, but the rule change there was that “mothefucker” had previously been banned, and “pedophile” had not.
  #62  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:03 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,249
Frankly, there's more problems than obscenity, but how does one combat bad faith?
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #63  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:31 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Making personal attacks against posters
This is both the area where I intend the most immediate change, but also the most subjective. I want to make attacking someone over deep personal trauma out-of-bounds, but that's going to necessarily be a lot of subjective decisions on my part. I've certainly seen a lot of people report posts because they were "traumatized" by the most picayune insults, or even simply criticism and disagreement. On the other hand, as an able-bodied white guy, there are entire oceans of trauma out there of which I have only the vaguest understanding.
I'm kind of ambivalent about this. I don't see why people doing their absolute best to insult others in every which way should be fundamentally different than introducing "deep personal trauma". But not a big deal. I do think there need to be two exceptions, though.

1. If someone is making a substantive point in a general way, and any insult to the other poster is incidental. For example, suppose hypothetically someone is arguing that rape/abuse victims should not sit on juries judging people accused of such crimes since their rational judgment might reasonably be impacted, someone else shouldn't be able to complain "as a rape/abuse victim myself I find it highly traumatic to be told that I am now to be disqualified from even serving on juries in such cases ..."

2. Where the traumatized person themselves introduces their circumstances as a way of bolstering one side of an argument. So if the discussion is about juries as above and someone says "I'm a rape/abuse victim myself and I think I and my fellow victims can be perfectly rational about such cases ...", I don't think it would be appropriate to bar the other guy from responding "no, I don't think you and your fellow victims can be assumed to be as rational as a non-victim ...", even though in this case the poster is addressing the traumatized person's circumstance directly.

To do otherwise would alter the nature of discussions of these issues, and allow personal trauma to be used as a trump card (or human shield).
  #64  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:37 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Where do you draw the line between "personal trauma is a trump card" vs "personal trauma gives you relevant experience that the non-survivor just doesn't have"?

Asking as a teenaged male rape survivor who was outright told by a now thankfully departed poster that I didn't know what I was talking about with regards to the mechanics of Sandusky's raping, but they did.

Was my rape a "trump card", or just enough experience that I could say I knew and they obviously didn't?

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-02-2019 at 09:42 AM.
  #65  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:50 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 6,104
Miller, I think that your style and standards in moderating the Pit have been damn near perfect. I prefer the judgment of a reasonable person to a bunch of rules-lawyering.
__________________
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy when it's used to argue against a concept. But it's perfectly appropriate when your point is that someone is an asshole. TonySinclair
  #66  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:55 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Where do you draw the line between "personal trauma is a trump card" vs "personal trauma gives you relevant experience that the non-survivor just doesn't have"?
There's no line necessary; these are not on the same axis.

Personal trauma is a "trump card" if the other poster is barred by rule from responding to your experience-based argument. It's "relevant experience" if they are not.
  #67  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:29 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
I'm all for a fairly free-wheeling hands off approach - within limits.

Even when we are calling each other all sorts of things, there are limits.

Some people don't know limits. They can be told off, treated in kind, or warned until they get with the program.

The worse ones are those who know but don't give a damn (and keep getting away with crossing the line) or those who don't give a damn but are expert at dancing all over the line (and getting away with it).

I think we all know a troll or a piece of garbage when we see one. The ones who do nasty egregious shit on a regular basis need (in my opinion) to be dealt with quicker and more ruthlessly sometimes.
^This.

TPTB need to go back to putting a short leash on anyone whose raison d'être is to rile people up. Particularly those who start dancing around, almost but not quite explicitly admitting that they're trolling.

Why do they start dancing around? It's the "I'm not touching you" argument; they know they're pissing people off and TPTB are way too hesitant to do anything about it.
  #68  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:25 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I'm kind of ambivalent about this. I don't see why people doing their absolute best to insult others in every which way should be fundamentally different than introducing "deep personal trauma". But not a big deal. I do think there need to be two exceptions, though.

1. If someone is making a substantive point in a general way, and any insult to the other poster is incidental. For example, suppose hypothetically someone is arguing that rape/abuse victims should not sit on juries judging people accused of such crimes since their rational judgment might reasonably be impacted, someone else shouldn't be able to complain "as a rape/abuse victim myself I find it highly traumatic to be told that I am now to be disqualified from even serving on juries in such cases ..."

2. Where the traumatized person themselves introduces their circumstances as a way of bolstering one side of an argument. So if the discussion is about juries as above and someone says "I'm a rape/abuse victim myself and I think I and my fellow victims can be perfectly rational about such cases ...", I don't think it would be appropriate to bar the other guy from responding "no, I don't think you and your fellow victims can be assumed to be as rational as a non-victim ...", even though in this case the poster is addressing the traumatized person's circumstance directly.

To do otherwise would alter the nature of discussions of these issues, and allow personal trauma to be used as a trump card (or human shield).
From what well of experience does dude number 2's opinion come? Given the way this board reacts to rape victims, that's just another misogynist assault. Maybe in some wonderful future world, that kind of opinion would not be ignorant, but there was a bunch of guys in the Pit calling Christine Blasey-Ford a liar while defending Kavanaugh, who did lie about several things, under oath, before Congress. I don't think we got any conservative defending those viewpoints to answer a direct question.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #69  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:47 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
Miller, I think that your style and standards in moderating the Pit have been damn near perfect. I prefer the judgment of a reasonable person to a bunch of rules-lawyering.
What’s reasonable? When one is posting insults in the pit aimed at another poster the intent is to make the other poster mad or to hurt their feelings. Insults that are too effective according to an in-group are bad while those from the in-group are perfectly reasonable?

To be fair, whatever the reprehensible dial is set at, objectivity is important.
  #70  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
I tend to think accusations of serious criminal conduct by other posters made flippantly (i.e. "you're a pedophile") should probably be outlawed, but I could be biased since someone did that to me. It was so obviously made flippantly and dishonestly that it caused me no worry (and such flippant insults probably don't cause any real problems), but such nonsense could be crafted in a way to mimic real and substantial accusations of criminal wrongdoing, which seems like it ought to be well out of bounds in that it could lead to all types of trouble. With that in mind, seems like it might be smart to ban that category of insults since it's such a tiny "slice" of insults that could cause much bigger problems.

On another note, I think misogyny should be treated the same as other forms of hate speech -- i.e. "slut" should be treated like racial slurs. Slurs against women are just as bad as slurs against various races and ethnicities, IMO.
  #71  
Old 12-02-2019, 01:36 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I tend to think accusations of serious criminal conduct by other posters made flippantly (i.e. "you're a pedophile") should probably be outlawed, but I could be biased since someone did that to me. It was so obviously made flippantly and dishonestly that it caused me no worry (and such flippant insults probably don't cause any real problems), but such nonsense could be crafted in a way to mimic real and substantial accusations of criminal wrongdoing, which seems like it ought to be well out of bounds in that it could lead to all types of trouble. With that in mind, seems like it might be smart to ban that category of insults since it's such a tiny "slice" of insults that could cause much bigger problems.

On another note, I think misogyny should be treated the same as other forms of hate speech -- i.e. "slut" should be treated like racial slurs. Slurs against women are just as bad as slurs against various races and ethnicities, IMO.

Slurs against women aren't even recognized as slurs.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #72  
Old 12-02-2019, 03:03 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
[Moderating]
Both of you knock it off. D'Anconia, of you don't have anything better to do than snipe at other posters, don't post in this thread.

No warnings this time.
[/Moderating]
Far be it from me to stick up for D'Anconia, but isn't this the forum to do so?
  #73  
Old 12-02-2019, 03:19 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Far be it from me to stick up for D'Anconia, but isn't this the forum to do so?
Read the red text in the OP.
  #74  
Old 12-02-2019, 03:25 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Read the red text in the OP.


Sorry 'bout that. Never mind.
  #75  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:29 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,587
Miller, I think the Pit is moderated just fine, and I like how you tell people to knock it off without pulling out the WARNING ISSUED card most of the time. I think your reminders to do this or not do that work well and people tend to follow them.

I wouldn't mind prohibitions about, for example, slagging on someone's kids, but the first few would get the Reminder, No warning Issued treatment, and after that, warnings for not following moderator direction.

There's my useless two cents.
  #76  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:42 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,037
I think moderation here is great for the most part, but I would like to see a prohibition on using personal information about someone as an insult against them. For many people, the SDMB is a place they can share something about themselves that they aren't comfortable sharing elsewhere. If everyone knows that any admission in MPSIMS can be used as ammo against them in the Pit, it closes that support channel.

I think you can address some of the concerns expressed above with some simple rules. First, things you did are fair game, things that happened to you are not. People can insult you because you choose not to vaccinate your kids. But when your kid dies because you didn't vaccinate him, someone shouldn't be able to laugh at you for having a dead kid. If you enlist in the Army, people can insult you for choosing to fight an immoral war. If you come back with PTSD, people don't get to make loony bin cracks.

And for concerns like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
2. Where the traumatized person themselves introduces their circumstances as a way of bolstering one side of an argument. So if the discussion is about juries as above and someone says "I'm a rape/abuse victim myself and I think I and my fellow victims can be perfectly rational about such cases ...", I don't think it would be appropriate to bar the other guy from responding "no, I don't think you and your fellow victims can be assumed to be as rational as a non-victim ...", even though in this case the poster is addressing the traumatized person's circumstance directly.
It's perfectly acceptable to use information the poster provided in arguments against them, like your example above. What shouldn't be allowed is using their status as a rape/abuse survivor as an insult.
  #77  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:13 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,737
Another one chiming in to say that I have no problems with the way the Pit is currently moderated, and (Dept. of ass-kissing) I've long considered Miller's moderation to be some of the best on the board.

Although I'll admit to being appalled by the lowness of the abuse handed out by some of the more egregious assholes around here, I've never been much for handing out the billingsgate myself and pretty much let 'em slide. Hell, I once made a joke out of a comment by one of these worthies about fucking my dead mother (life's too short, etc.)

Executive summary: keep on keepin' on.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017