# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/61 "2008-12-17T22:00:57Z")
First off: Agreed, of course, that mods deserve respect, mods need to have both discretion and discretionary power, and posters who break rules should face pre-agreed consequences. I see no end of problems with switching rules mid-thread. I think **it will not serve to make any boundaries clearer.** It seems to turn the Pit boundaries into a moving target. I’m not convinced that any eyes are actually being gouged (though feelings may indeed be being hurt). Is it really so bad for an occasional thread to end in a flaming wreck? If it is, and I realize many people do believe it is, I think it would make more sense for the rule to be “You’re allowed to be insulting and curse and stuff in the Pit, but you are not allowed to be cruel. If a mod thinks you’re getting too rough even for the Pit, that mod can ask you to scale it back. If you don’t, or if you argue, you’re suspended. Mods are allowed to use subjective judgment in such cases. If you don’t like it, don’t play.” I know some posters don’t want mods to have power to act on subjective evaluations in the first place, but I think it’s unreasonable to expect anything else. And, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/62 "2008-12-17T22:05:08Z")
> [@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? The thread that gave rise to the present controversy clearly went too far. As for close-but-not-over, please, this isn’t the kind of thing that lends itself to precise calibration. Most of the Pit threads I read are fine. > [@Duke](#): > > 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. I thought about that. Tell you what, I’ll try it after I post this. > [@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? Mods (and admins) are expected to moderate. I choose them because they have thick skins and level heads, which isn’t a pretty picture but useful in this line of work. They aren’t allowed to insult posters except in the Pit, and even there they’re expected to exercise restraint, particularly when acting in an official capacity. (By the way, “no insults” doesn’t mean they have to be invariably gentle. I like to sign up people who can handle themselves under the basket, if you follow me.) Occasionally a mod does something inadvisable; I handle these matters privately. If you have a beef and pitting the mod doesn’t provide sufficient satisfaction, feel free to e-mail me. > [@Quasimodem](#): > > 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. I believe this is technically possible, but with thousands of posters it would be a helluva job to administer. I strongly advise against posting without knowing what forum you’re in. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I’m thinking of the insulted poster who can no longer reply in kind. We would never say, you’re not allowed to insult anyone, but everyone else can insult you. > [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Cool. I can Pit someone, really ratchet shit up getting in people’s grills, vent myself to my satisfaction–and if I’m lucky, when I’m done spewing poo like a masturbatin’ motherfuck, the whole thread gets shut down and sent to Sunnybrook Farm, so no one can get in a few last licks on me? Coo-well. I love this idea. I’m gonna start Pitting a whole bunch of you right now. Let’s see, where’s that list of people I hate? I knew that was gonna come in handy someday… We hope no one will try to twist the procedure to his advantage in this way, and will look unkindly on anyone who does. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > All this does is open the door for subjective judgment and questionable “official” actions, which I believe is the cause of most, if not all complaints by the members. Mods have their hands full with legitimate concerns. This just seems to open the door for selective application and enforcement against certain members. This is not aimed at certain posters, and we don’t expect to be handing out warnings right and left once non-Pit rules are imposed. We just want things to settle down. The idea is to give us another option besides shutting down a thread altogether. > [@elucidator](#): > > But if you make the Pit the Pit Lite, it blurs the distinction The idea is to _avoid_ imposing draconian rules that would turn this into Pit Lite. Most MBs don’t have anything akin to the Pit (I’m sure there are exceptions); they just throw you out. I like the Pit and enjoy entertaining vitriol as much as the next guy. I don’t see this procedure being imposed often; most Pit threads are fine. > [@Qwisp](#): > > As Ed said, this is an experiment, let’s give it a try. If it doesn’t work, something else can be tried. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/63 "2008-12-17T22:08:05Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Perhaps the thread title should be edited accordingly. Done. ---
**Author:** ![Jaglavak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85f322/32.png) [@Jaglavak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaglavak)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/64 "2008-12-17T22:10:17Z")
Ed - 1. I hope y’all manage to find a way to keep the lights on. This place is unique. 2. I see train wrecks ahead with this new rule but I’ll do my best to comply. I understand what you’re trying to do, but I much prefer bare knuckle posting. Personally I find a good kick in the chops to be refreshing and inspirational. 3. I thought the grilling you took over some recent bannings was waaaay over the top and you showed remarkable restraint toward some of the mouthier flamers. I’m down with intellectual honesty and all, but there’s no reason you should have to put up with that kind of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/65 "2008-12-17T22:12:43Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. > [@Cagey\_Drifter](#): > > 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. Yet there are limits to The Pit. Flaming is permitted but is not a requirement, and sometimes gets out of hand with bad results. **Ed** is trying to institute some basic fire prevention. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/66 "2008-12-17T22:22:21Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > We would never say, you’re not allowed to insult anyone, but everyone else can insult you. Never? What if an Op gets flamed and you change the status of the thread before the OP gets a chance to respond ? Will he get a variance? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/67 "2008-12-17T22:23:02Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Yet there are limits to The Pit. Flaming is permitted but is not a requirement, and sometimes gets out of hand with bad results. **Ed** is trying to institute some basic fire prevention. I agree with that, and I have no problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/68 "2008-12-17T22:28:42Z")
I think this is a good idea. I’m thinking specifically of the Hitler Birthday Cake thread which started out fine but got really heated over a weird issue. If a mod had come down with the NPR around post 40 or so, it might have turned out much better. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/69 "2008-12-17T22:31:25Z")
Add me to the roster of people who think that this will only serve to make things more confusing. I suggest that maybe if a thread is being hijacked by something such as a flame war between two posters, then maybe the mod could step in and tell them to take it to a separate thread. If we get a thread that seems to be turning into an interesting discussion, then maybe we should move it elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/70 "2008-12-17T22:32:18Z")
I would suggest “Cooldown Rules” rather than “Non-Pit Rules”, defining what a “cooldown” is, and using that across the boards. GD threads can get out of hand without needing to be locked or moved sometimes too. Maybe it could be as simple as no one being allowed to post addressing another poster, but only in direct statements of their own positions, until the rule is lifted. ---
**Author:** ![lightingtool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/57b2e6/32.png) [@lightingtool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lightingtool)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/71 "2008-12-17T22:36:53Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > I think this is a good idea. I’m thinking specifically of the Hitler Birthday Cake thread which started out fine but got really heated over a weird issue. If a mod had come down with the NPR around post 40 or so, it might have turned out much better. I understand your point, but I think a mod coming in and saying ‘Knock it off - please stay on topic’ would have worked just as well. I think the ‘Non-Pit-Rules-Apply’ thing is an interesting idea, but one that will create more trouble than it’s worth. ETA - I really like **Ensign Edison** ’s idea. That could work well across the boards. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/72 "2008-12-17T22:41:25Z")
**Ed** , thanks for the updates- and for the updates to the Board software. I, for one, think they work really well. I will watch the implementation of the new rules with interest, although I don’t think _this_ is going to work too well. Re: **Euthanasiast** , while I think he got the short end of the stick to some degree, aren’t we kind of legislating for a problem that doesn’t really exist? I’ve been around for quite a while, and I don’t recall a similar situation ever having occurred before. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/73 "2008-12-17T22:44:17Z")
I’ve thought for several years that there should be at least two Pit fora: one for us to Pit off-board persons and entities (e.g. Pitting Barack Obama), and another for us to Pit each other. It fits into the present conversation because non-Pit rules between posters could apply to the ‘Pitting outsiders’ forum as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/74 "2008-12-17T22:48:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’ve been around for quite a while, and I don’t recall a similar situation ever having occurred before. I can think of a few threads in which a fire extinguisher could have helped avert a suspension or banning. ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/75 "2008-12-17T22:58:23Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > I think this is a good idea. I’m thinking specifically of the Hitler Birthday Cake thread which started out fine but got really heated over a weird issue. If a mod had come down with the NPR around post 40 or so, it might have turned out much better. Have you been back to see how that one’s going? I’m not at all convinced a mod could have helped at the worst stage, and it also took a [turn for the better](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10584037&postcount=123) later. ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/76 "2008-12-17T23:00:01Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > I can think of a few threads in which a fire extinguisher could have helped avert a suspension or banning. OK, but can’t the mods hose 'em down \*without \*a change of rules in the middle of a thread? If the rule is always “mind the mods” even in the Pit, and as far as I know it is, is a new rule needed? ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/77 "2008-12-17T23:10:52Z")
> [@Caffeine.addict](#): > > I suggest that maybe if a thread is being hijacked by something such as a flame war between two posters, then maybe the mod could step in and tell them to take it to a separate thread. This has always been an option and will continue to be. I expect NPR to be invoked in the relatively rare case that (a) an otherwise interesting and/or entertaining thread has turned into (or is verging on) an all-out flamewar that is needlessly getting lots of people ticked off - we don’t see this too often; or (b) a controversy has erupted over board administration and we want everybody to calm down while we get things sorted out. Again, not common but it happens and it’s ugly when it does. > [@](#): > > If we get a thread that seems to be turning into an interesting discussion, then maybe we should move it elsewhere. As others have remarked, Pit threads are rarely suitable for other forums. ---
**Author:** ![Wiggie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/0ea827/32.png) [@Wiggie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wiggie)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/78 "2008-12-17T23:14:56Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > …maybe a new forum, entitled “An Even Deeper Pit” or “Consumed By Weasels”… Or hell. Oh, wait, I jumped ahead without reading all the posts! Am I still allowed to swear? ETA: Damn! I mean darn! I thought that was the original thread title! ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/79 "2008-12-17T23:26:07Z")
> [@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. > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > I thought about that. Tell you what, I’ll try it after I post this…Done. Is this the first time **Ed** ’s taken an idea from a post that started “FUCK YOU”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615/80 "2008-12-18T00:05:20Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > 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. I thought of that as well. But I also noticed that anyone can place that statement in his thread title. ISTM that in addition to this, the mod who changes the status could append such a statement to the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-conduct-in-the-pit-non-pit-rules-apply/477615.md?page=5)