A Question For Ed

A few questions for Ed:

As I understand the rules, if I have a personal quarrel with a poster in Great Debates, I am allowed to say so in a Pit thread.

Also as I understand the rules, I am allowed to post a link in the Great Debates thread to the Pit thread if done politely.

For example, “Joe Schmo, I have started a Pit Thread about you.” or “Joe Schmo, I refer to my old pit thread about you”

Do I understand the rules correctly? Because a moderator just implied that I was breaking the rules by doing these things.

Cite: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11127064&postcount=34

I could understand this might be a problem if done repeatedly in a thread, but I’ve never done it more than once in a thread.


Another question:

If I wish to respond to a poster (just once in a great debates thread) by simply saying the following, is it against the rules?

“For reasons stated elsewhere, I do not engage with this poster.”

A moderator has claimed that this is equivalent to saying that someone is on one’s ignore list, but I don’t think so.

Thanks Ed.

For a particular poster, that is.

Let me see if I understand you here.

You believe if you have a disagreement with someone that is sufficient for a Pit thread that you also have the right to advertise your disagreement with that poster in other threads they write to, is that correct?

What do you do, follow them around from thread to thread and remind them that you want them to go to the Pit and fight with you? That sounds quite like stalking, which we don’t allow. If you disagree with someone you do not have the right to chase them all over the board like that, no.

Absolutely not. I understand that “stalking” is against the rules. I would respond in the way I have described only if the poster in question first responds to an argument which I make, and then only once.

I’m not asking whether “stalking” is permitted. I know that it’s not permitted and I have no interest in engaging in it.

The mods are discussing this behind the scenes, and we’ll get back to you.

Please be sure I understand: Let’s say there’s a political debate going on, and you think Fred is being stupid. You can’t say “Fred, you’re stupid” in that thread (that would be personal insult, not allowed) so you open a Pit thread called “Fred is stupid.” Back in the debate, you say, “I’ve started a Pit thread about you, Fred” and post a link to the Pit thread you started.

Is that the situation?

We do let you link your Pit thread in the thread that spawned it – so the Pittee knows they’re being Pitted – but otherwise, no. Because that would be stalking and that’s uncool.

Close, but not exactly. I don’t want to have to start a new pit thread for each debate thread in which stupid fred makes a stupid response to one of my posts.

So I think it’s reasonable to say once – and only once – in the debate thread that I don’t debate any more with fred. Or, in the alternative, to post a simple link to a past pit thread in which I explain why I think fred is stupid.

If you look at the debate thread I linked to earlier, you will see that the exchange ended quickly. Because I responded to “fred” once and only once. So I think my approach to things works pretty well.

Thank you for your consideration.

I think you’re entitled to state your view – once – but you can’t keep bashing them afterwards with it. That’s not useful. It’s not like they’re going to get any smarter if you keep saying it.

OTOH, since this particular topic is likely to come up every few weeks, is there value in these two butting heads over the same issue every time? brazil84’s choice of linking to an old pit thread may spare us all the need to have to relive an argument that is never going to go away.

On the other hand, you repeately find ways to say “Nyah, Nyah! I’m not going to talk to you” that are not directly in violation of the letter of the “Do not indicate who is on your ignore list” rule, while clearly in direct spite of the spirit of it.

This was clearly such a case, linking to a post on a Pitting that was over two months old that had already run its course and had nothing to do with the current thread.
Any claims that you were simply announcing a Pitting in an act of board etiquette are nonsense.

The next time you try an end run on the rule against declaring which posters you will ignore, you will simply be Warned with a motion to Suspend.
The rule regarding the Ignore List is not intended to simply interfere with the use of board software. It is intended to take the petty taunting that the Ignore List could enable out of threads where name-calling is already prohibited. You have gone to such extreme measures as setting up an entire web site to announce which posters you would ignore and trying to game the system with links to ancient Pit threads as you have done here.
Such actions have no point in Great Debates and you have now demonstrated that you will use any subterfuge to indulge your penchant for that sort of taunting, so there will be no further admonitions; the fact that you have found increasingly creative ways to play that game indicates that we need to call the game finished.

[ /Moderator of Great Debates ]

Please tell me this statement applies only to the SDMB and not to real-life ignorance-fighting pursuits like, say, librarianship.

Please?

I was referring only to Brazil and his habits and nothing else.

Wait a minute – I thought the rule regarding the Ignore List was changed – that now you ARE allowed to say who’s on it.

It’s allowed in the Pit. That’s not equivalent to what Brazil84 has done in Great Debates.