# Acceptable conduct in the Pit - NON-PIT RULES APPLY **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 17, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615 "2008-12-17T19:33:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/41 "2008-12-17T20:59:50Z")
I have no problem with a mod changing the course of a thread here into something else midway. However, as others have stated, I think that the solution offered will indeed cause more heartache and trouble than it’s worth for the staff. So I propose that, since there isn’t nearly as much difficulty as had previously been thought to add new fora, one be specifically created only for when a thread is derailed beyond repair. Then it can be sent there and it doesn’t turn this place into a kinder, gentler Pit, no extra work is required beyond the move and the other fora is left to their original purpose. Kind of similar to what snopes has in Petty Bickering (or did, when I used to post there). ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/42 "2008-12-17T21:01:07Z")
> [@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. 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 having trouble understanding when this would be useful. In the past whenever a pit thread has evolved(or devolved, depending on how you look at it) into a GD, CS, MPSIMS, whatever thread, the thread is simply moved. If there are a few people being hotheads in an otherwise civil thread with an interesting discussion, move the thread and give the hotheads a heads up. A forum move is a clear demarcation point where people know the rules have changed. Did you have some specific threads in mind where you’d use this technique and can you explain why they wouldn’t be candidates for a move to one of the more focused forums(with the civility rules)? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/43 "2008-12-17T21:03:06Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > The question about acceptable thread titles is still left open as well. Could you clarify if “misleading” thread titles are ok or if thread titles must be 100% factual? (Especially since this whole mess got kicked off from confusion over that “rule”) Could you clarify? Yesterday I reported the “MacDonalds hates Blacks” OP warning of a misleading title. No response, so we can assume that the rule no longer applies. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/44 "2008-12-17T21:04:18Z")
> [@Qwisp](#): > > I think for the most part the mods do a thankless job, and I for one think they deserve our respect, if only for that reason. Too often I have seen members of this board derail a thread over the most mundane nitpicking. Tempers get raised and often ruin an otherwise interesting thread. I’m not sure that making a thread a “non-pit” thread will work, but I can see where the idea came from. As Ed said, this is an experiment, let’s give it a try. If it doesn’t work, something else can be tried. Oh sure, be reasonable about things why don’t you? Man, some people… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/45 "2008-12-17T21:05:23Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > [This one.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=496627) I guess I’m a little confused by this. There was nothing in that thread I would call ‘‘eye-gouging’’ compared to anything else that would fly here. The existing rules state that you can’t directly insult a mod for taking mod actions in that thread, but that you can Pit a mod in a separate thread, which is exactly what happened in the above link. It looked like every other Pit argument I’ve ever seen. I don’t understand why the need to further moderate The Pit exists. Just clear this up – is it the thread pitting the mod for suspending **Euth** , or is it the actual incident in which **Euth** was suspended that is the issue here? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/46 "2008-12-17T21:05:59Z")
There are (rare) times when an interesting thread is being derailed by an unrelated cage match, and it is hard to separate the interesting stuff from the handful of people going 15 rounds over the definition of some word in an 1836 edition of Webster’s. So I, for one, will withhold judgment on the new rule until I see how often they actually do it, and how they handle the (inevitable) misunderstandings that will arise. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/47 "2008-12-17T21:13:23Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I guess I’m a little confused by this. There was nothing in that thread I would call ‘‘eye-gouging’’ compared to anything else that would fly here. The existing rules state that you can’t directly insult a mod for taking mod actions in that thread, but that you can Pit a mod in a separate thread, which is exactly what happened in the above link. FWIW, if that indeed was a rule before today many folks were unaware of it. > [@](#): > > Just clear this up – is it the thread pitting the mod for suspending **Euth** , or is it the actual incident in which **Euth** was suspended that is the issue here? I suspect that the incident in which he was suspended is the issue here. I provided the link because you asked what prompted this thread. In the linked thread, the last several pages were essentially a discussion of what the rules were and how they were to be applied, which caused \*\*Ed \*\*_et. al_. to have a pow-wow to get things sorted out, which resulted in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/48 "2008-12-17T21:13:48Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I guess I’m a little confused by this. There was nothing in that thread I would call ‘‘eye-gouging’’ compared to anything else that would fly here. The existing rules state that you can’t directly insult a mod for taking mod actions in that thread, but that you can Pit a mod in a separate thread, which is exactly what happened in the above link. It looked like every other Pit argument I’ve ever seen. I don’t understand why the need to further moderate The Pit exists. > > Just clear this up – is it the thread pitting the mod for suspending **Euth** , or is it the actual incident in which **Euth** was suspended that is the issue here? You have to dig down a couple links to get to the original transgression and warning. Here: [Planned parenthood hides rape of 13 year-old girl - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=496205) Thread was locked. ---
**Author:** ![CircleofWillis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/54ee81/32.png) [@CircleofWillis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CircleofWillis)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/49 "2008-12-17T21:15:19Z")
Does this rule at all address the subjectivity of a Mod’s decision? Is there any peer review in terms of a mod’s decision (ie trolling vs misleading title) ? Is there any objective user appeal process of a mod’s decsion? This rule just seems to be if you don’t like the mods, punt. Oh and even if they did cal you a goat licking hairy nutsack shrub, be nice. ---
**Author:** ![Atomicflea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@Atomicflea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atomicflea)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/50 "2008-12-17T21:17:10Z")
He could have probably kept it lower key while still disagreeing, but I agree that the moderator overreacted and gave an unclear warning. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/51 "2008-12-17T21:20:21Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > 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 agree with that. And as \*\* Ed Zotti \*\* stated himself, it’s going to be confusing when people will not notice the thread has been declared a “non Pit Pit thread”. Frankly, I’d rather have a clear, unambiguous, clear cut rule : “It’s in the Pit, flame away. It isn’t in the Pit, don’t flame”. Period. Anything else is going to lead to more acrimony, arguments with mods, and so on. I’m not sure what it is supposed to accomplish, anyway. Yes, there are plenty of worthwhile threads in the Pit, but you can pretty much ignore the flame posts and keep on arguing about the worthwhile part of of it. Or open a new thread in GD, IMHO, etc… specifically about the issue that you find interesting and worthwhile (it happens quite often). I think that basically I’m confused by the concept (and the rule hasn’t even begun to be implemented) . Why do you think it’s useful and don’t you think it defeats the very purpose of the Pit (whose existence, I think, is what allows the other forums to stay mostly civil)? What positive outcome do you expect? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/52 "2008-12-17T21:22:16Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > Does this rule at all address the subjectivity of a Mod’s decision? **Is there any peer review in terms of a mod’s decision** (ie trolling vs misleading title) ? Is there any objective user appeal process of a mod’s decsion? > > This rule just seems to be if you don’t like the mods, punt. Oh and even if they did cal you a goat licking hairy nutsack shrub, be nice. Bolding mine. Well Lynn specifically said she contacted other mods and asked their opinions on Euth’s posting. Some said do nothing, some said suspend him for a bit and some said ban him. Besides I am sure I have seen other mods say that they do consult each other and no mod takes single action when it comes to suspenions and bannings. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/53 "2008-12-17T21:24:24Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > 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.** Oh, okay. What rules _do_ apply? IMHO? GD? MPSIMS? Is it left up to the moderator to decide, or are the rules still quasi-pit, just with no flaming? More to the point, if non-Pit rules are imposed and somebody throws out a WAG, can that person be Pitted for not providing a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/54 "2008-12-17T21:24:24Z")
Obviously, the solution to the problem outlined in the OP is to have an outlet for Pit participants who get overheated - maybe a new forum, entitled “An Even Deeper Pit” or “Consumed By Weasels” where absolutely anything goes, unless it gets too overheated for even _that_ place, so then… The proposed solutions are not good ideas, especially the one about suddenly demanding decorum standards suitable to other forums in the midst of a heated discussion. If it’s deemed that unsanitary, then (as others have said), just close down the thread. And with all due respect and servile humility, Ed, it was a poor idea to declare in the midst of your OP that you are invoking the “keep it civil” rule. If you can’t tolerate the thought of someone being nasty to you regarding your proposals in _this_ thread, how on earth do you expect to be a moderator in the Pit and keep it “just as raucous and fun as it always has been”? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/55 "2008-12-17T21:26:23Z")
> [@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 agree with this also. ---
**Author:** ![Cagey\_Drifter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@Cagey\_Drifter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cagey_Drifter)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/56 "2008-12-17T21:33:24Z")
It seems very odd to me that such bureaucracy and regulation needs to go into a freakin’ message board. I can sort of understand it with regards to GQ and some other sections, but we’re talking about the Pit, the place that was designed to _isolate_ chaos; if you try to regulate it here too, there’s no place else for it to go, and it’s just going to pop up everywhere. These are just words. No one is getting shot. No one is dying. Probably no one is even getting their feelings hurt because it’s online instead of IRL. Do we really need to have this level of regulation and handholding for every aspect of our lives? This is a message board; we shouldn’t be having to install all these legal and regulatory requirements here, IMO. Trainwrecks are to be expected in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/57 "2008-12-17T21:37:02Z")
I, for one, welcome our new Pit Rule Overlords. They will help some of the rest of you to improve your posting to near my exemplary standards. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/58 "2008-12-17T21:51:21Z")
I don’t get it. I think the Pit is a pressure valve that keeps the rest of the board more civil. I only really have a problem with a single mod whose decisions I often disagree with. I can’t recall ever pitting him. If you don’t like participating in a flame war, then don’t. Why go all nursery school paternal on us? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/59 "2008-12-17T21:53:40Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > Does this rule at all address the subjectivity of a Mod’s decision? Is there any peer review in terms of a mod’s decision (ie trolling vs misleading title) ? Is there any objective user appeal process of a mod’s decsion? > > This rule just seems to be if you don’t like the mods, punt. Oh and even if they did cal you a goat licking hairy nutsack shrub, be nice. Well, if another poster calls you a goat-licking nutsack outside the pit, you still break the rules if you call him a nut-sucking goatbag in return. Just because a mod or another poster breaks the rules that doesn’t mean you get to break the rules. Could it be possible for people to disagree with a moderator without going apeshit? Moderator decisions are subjective. Get used to it. There’s no objective appeal process, because the only people you can appeal to are the other moderators who aren’t objective either, the administrators who aren’t objective, and Ed, who isn’t objective either. Well, you can appeal to other posters to tell the moderating staff that they’re making a mistake, but the problem with that is, you guessed it, the posters aren’t objective either. Welcome to the human condition. If you’ve got a better way to run a message board, I’d like to see it. Supposedly objective rules that spell out exactly what you can and can’t say aren’t the answer, first because moderators can’t read every message and and second because every supposedly objective rule has to be interpreted subjectively. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/60 "2008-12-17T21:53:54Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > FWIW, if that indeed was a rule before today many folks were unaware of it. Oh. I was assuming it had always been a rule since it is mentioned in the OP. > [@](#): > > I suspect that the incident in which he was suspended is the issue here. I provided the link because you asked what prompted this thread. In the linked thread, the last several pages were essentially a discussion of what the rules were and how they were to be applied, which caused \*\*Ed \*\*_et. al_. to have a pow-wow to get things sorted out, which resulted in this thread. I see. I would think, then, that the new rule, if it is in fact new, would be sufficient to fix the problem. I don’t really like the idea of changing the rules of a thread midway through. I think it would cause a lot of confusion, and ultimately bitterness if someone gets attacked and then suddenly has no recourse to retaliate in kind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615.md?page=4)