Acceptable conduct in the Pit - NON-PIT RULES APPLY

[Ed_Zotti]

The SDMB staff has discussed the situation in the BBQ Pit and has concluded as follows:

• Some posters and staff (myself included) feel the Pit can sometimes get out of hand, where a small minority of overly abusive posters can make discussions unnecessarily unpleasant. We don’t want to add a bunch of new rules and make things overly restrictive. Rather, we’d like to try using moderator guidance in these cases to draw clearer lines of what we consider acceptable and unacceptable in the Pit.

• Communication between SDMB senior management (i.e., me) and users could stand to be seriously improved.

To address these concerns, we’re going to try an experiment - I’m going to assist Giraffe and fluiddruid in moderating the Pit. Since I haven’t been a regular poster, let me start by telling you about myself, what I do, and what we’re trying to accomplish:

1. In addition to assisting Cecil Adams, author of the Straight Dope column, I manage the Straight Dope’s business enterprises, one of which is this site. Most SDMB staffers are volunteers; I get paid.

2. One of my more urgent duties is to figure out a way to make money on this site for the Straight Dope’s parent company, Creative Loafing Media. As many of you know, CL is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. This gives us protection from creditors while we reorganize.

3. The online Straight Dope is one of CL’s top priorities. I participate in a weekly conference call to discuss the Straight Dope sales effort. Among other things this involves getting sales staff at each of CL’s six publications to sell online Straight Dope advertising. There’s more to it than that, but that’s a discussion we can have another time.

4. CL has been obliged to lay off much of its staff due to falling revenues, a problem that affects the entire newspaper industry. As a result, we have limited technical resources. Earlier this fall we implemented a major upgrade of the SD site, including moving to a new server platform for the SDMB. This work is substantially complete and board performance in our observation is considerably improved. A few tasks remain; current status is provided in the first post in this thread:

Current Status of SDMB Upgrade

CL technical staff is now working on other important projects, one of which is a content management system that controls how the company’s publications distribute content to our print and online outlets. As a result, some annoying but non-mission-critical SDMB glitches will remain unattended for the time being.

Enough background - now to the matter at hand, namely the Pit and what you can do there and what you can’t. I set up the Pit in 1999 when the online SD moved from AOL to the Web. The idea was to provide a safety valve for discussion that had gotten too raucous for the rest of the board. For the most part the Pit does what it was intended to do, but occasionally what started out as sharp elbows turns into eyeball-gouging. The goal here is to damp down on extreme behavior while still letting the Pit be the Pit.

With that in mind, let me reiterate one of the bright-line rules of the SDMB, which is stated in the registration agreement:

“You agree to abide by the wishes of the board moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules. Refusal to cooperate with board moderators or to abide by these rules is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.”

The staff deserves some minimum level of respect when acting officially. If you wish to take issue with a mod’s admonition in a thread, you may do so, but failing to comply or posting an insulting or abusive response risks disciplinary action, ranging from warning to outright banning. It’s generally recommended that criticism of staff and/or their actions be taken to a separate Pit thread. To repeat: You can disagree with the moderator’s decision, and you can argue, but you can’t insult the moderator in response to a mod note or warning IN THAT THREAD. This does NOT mean you can’t Pit a mod.

There’s one change of procedure in the Pit I’d like to try experimentally - namely, changing the rules in mid-thread for the duration of that thread. For example, if a worthwhile discussion is underway but tempers are flaring and the language is becoming extreme, we may find it advisable to declare that “non-Pit rules now apply,” meaning no more flaming from that point on in the thread. Sure, putting the brakes on in this way presents some practical problems. In a long thread, some may not read all the way to the end before responding; obviously it’s not fair to impose sanctions on someone who’s unaware that the moderator has drawn the line. I think patience and common sense on the moderator’s part are the solution to this problem. Better that, I think, than do nothing and let the thread degenerate into a train wreck.

I’m going to try a variation on this new procedure right now. I’m sure a lot of people will have questions and comments in light of the recent controversy. That’s fine, but please note: Non-Pit rules apply in this thread. That means keep it civil - no flaming.

As a closing note, let me say our goal is to make the Pit just as raucous and fun as it always has been, but to make the boundaries clearer so both posters and staff can enjoy posting there. We welcome discussion and other ideas for improvement.

[flight]

Could you give us an example of a recent Pit discussion that has gone too far and one that is still OK but very close to going over the line?

[Duke]

FUCK YOU, YOU CHEESE-EATING…oh whoops, sorry.

Well, it’s an interesting idea. Salient question: if the “Non-pit rule” warning comes on page 3 of a five-page thread, how will newcomers to the thread know the warning is in effect? Perhaps the thread title should be edited accordingly.

[kidchameleon]

@Ed_Zotti

There’s one change of procedure in the Pit I’d like to try experimentally - namely, changing the rules in mid-thread for the duration of that thread. For example, if a worthwhile discussion is underway but tempers are flaring and the language is becoming extreme, we may find it advisable to declare that “non-Pit rules now apply,” meaning no more flaming from that point on in the thread. Sure, putting the brakes on in this way presents some practical problems. In a long thread, some may not read all the way to the end before responding; obviously it’s not fair to impose sanctions on someone who’s unaware that the moderator has drawn the line.

Maybe it might encourage folks to finish reading a thread, a pet peeve of mine. (and probably at least one other poster. Maybe two.)

[XJETGIRLX]

@Ed_Zotti

The staff deserves some minimum level of respect when acting officially. If you wish to take issue with a mod’s admonition in a thread, you may do so, but failing to comply or posting an insulting or abusive response risks disciplinary action, ranging from warning to outright banning. It’s generally recommended that criticism of staff and/or their actions be taken to a separate Pit thread. To repeat: You can disagree with the moderator’s decision, and you can argue, but you can’t insult the moderator in response to a mod note or warning IN THAT THREAD. This does NOT mean you can’t Pit a mod.

This is great, but as we’ve asked for before, can we get some sort of understanding of what kind of behavior is expected from mods and admins? Specifically, can we get a ruling on whether they are to be held to the same standards of respect, and if they fail to do so, will they also be subject to disciplinary action?

[Contrapuntal]

@Ed_Zotti

The staff deserves some minimum level of respect when acting officially.

I wholeheartedly agree.

If you wish to take issue with a mod’s admonition in a thread, you may do so, but failing to comply or posting an insulting or abusive response risks disciplinary action, ranging from warning to outright banning. It’s generally recommended that criticism of staff and/or their actions be taken to a separate Pit thread. To repeat: You can disagree with the moderator’s decision, and you can argue, but you can’t insult the moderator in response to a mod note or warning IN THAT THREAD. This does NOT mean you can’t Pit a mod.

In light of the fact that you and the other moderators/administrators felt that this needed to be clarified, doesn’t Euthanasiast’s suspension seem wrong? How was he supposed to know that?

[tdn]

@Duke

Perhaps the thread title should be edited accordingly.

Great idea!

[Quasimodem]

Ed,

Is it possible to block entry into the various rooms? For example, sometimes, when I look under “NEW POSTS” and see something interesting I will post to it, not knowing where I am.

So I would like to stay out of GD and The Pit.

If it isn’t possible, I’ll just try to watch out where I’m fixin to post.

Thanks, and sorry CL is going bankrupt. My ex-wife used to write features for the Atlanta CL.

Bill

[Zakalwe]

@Duke

FUCK YOU, YOU CHEESE-EATING…oh whoops, sorry.

Well, it’s an interesting idea. Salient question: if the “Non-pit rule” warning comes on page 3 of a five-page thread, how will newcomers to the thread know the warning is in effect? Perhaps the thread title should be edited accordingly.

Well, just a simple solution, someone could make sure to mention it every few posts (or more specifically at the top of new pages). A simple “Well, Non-Pit rules apply in this thread now, so I’ll keep this civil…” followed by what would have been the normal reply would go a long way. Although I do like the idea that there might be some incentive to actually, you know, READ the thread before spouting off.

On preview, I’d like to add that I agree with XJETGIRLX. Mods and admins should abide by the same rules we all have to concerning personal insults and such.

[lieu]

I like the title edit idea too, or even an icon if appropriate. I’m guessin’ that can be done fairly easily, should only be required infrequently and would be pretty hard to miss.

Some threads do get pretty rough.

[Atomicflea]

@flight

Could you give us an example of a recent Pit discussion that has gone too far and one that is still OK but very close to going over the line?

This. I’m not sure how many folks fall into this category, but I’d do better with an example.

[Jack_Batty]

I’m not a board noodge. I go along to get along. I’ve never pitted a mod and until this post I don’t think I’ve ever even typed Ed Zotti’s name before … but on first glance, this sounds like a horrendous idea to me. In the middle of Pit thread someone can jump in and declare it is now a Great Debate? Or Mundane? Or whatever?

Seems wishy-washy to me.

I say, have a sack and just do away with the Pit altogether if it’s that much of a boil on the board’s ass.
All that being said, eh, whatever. It’s really no skin off my dick.

[Miller]

I agree with Jack on the whole “non-pit rules” thing. I think it’s going to lead to a lot more suspensions and bannings in the long run, as posters who get that worked up are going to have a lot of trouble ratcheting things back to acceptable levels. I think it would be a better idea, if a thread has gotten that out-of-hand, to just close the thread down.

I’m on-board with the rule about not abusing mods for their official mod actions, though.

[UncleRojelio]

I don’t understand the need for this new rule. If a thread really goes off the rails, posters don’t have to come back to it for more abuse. If you can’t stand the pit, stay out.

[Pleonast]

@Ed_Zotti

There’s one change of procedure in the Pit I’d like to try experimentally - namely, changing the rules in mid-thread for the duration of that thread.
…
As a closing note, let me say our goal is to make the Pit just as raucous and fun as it always has been, but to make the boundaries clearer so both posters and staff can enjoy posting there. We welcome discussion and other ideas for improvement.

I can see problems. Special thread rules blur the boundaries between forums. Yeah, it’s pretty blurry between forums already. But it might be able to work, if the moderators follow Duke’s suggestion and put a big “[NON-PIT RULES]” in the thread title.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Ed_Zotti

obviously it’s not fair to impose sanctions on someone who’s unaware that the moderator has drawn the line.

I’m thinking of the insulted poster who can no longer reply in kind. Oh well, he can always start a new pit thread , referencing the old thread and quoting the offending post.

I always thought the old way, simply locking an offending thread with an explanation was the way to go. You’ve just added more work for yourselves and added a whole lot more confusion which as I understand it was the main issue of the protest.

[tdn]

@lieu

I like the title edit idea too, or even an icon if appropriate.

Maybe an un-Pit thread could allow avatars.

[Lionne]

I agree with Jack, **Miller **and Dutchman; just close a thread down if it gets to be too much. If there’s a fear a mod will decide to apply non-Pit rules, the Pit isn’t truly the Pit.

[Gukumatz]

What about putting in a “Pit thread title [Mod:NPR* after post #124]”

*Non-Pit Rules.

[Acsenray]

@XJETGIRLX

This is great, but as we’ve asked for before, can we get some sort of understanding of what kind of behavior is expected from mods and admins? Specifically, can we get a ruling on whether they are to be held to the same standards of respect, and if they fail to do so, will they also be subject to disciplinary action?

What would be the point of this? It would just be an opportunity for more pointless wrangling about whether Moderator A should be subject to Discipline Level Orange or Discipline Level Yellow for X, Y, and Z violations. Members should not expect an opportunity to rules-lawyer suspensions and bannings of moderators.