Acceptable conduct in the Pit - NON-PIT RULES APPLY

[Ed_Zotti]

@emilyforce

Then WHY do you want to add a new rule? The current rules cover everything you’re trying to accomplish – some posters don’t like it. This necessitates a new rule how?

When we first went online on AOL in 1995 or so, our message board rules consisted in their entirety of the following, which I well remember because I wrote it:

“We have one basic rule: Don’t be a jerk. Don’t make us make more.”

I naively thought it was obvious what jerklike behavior was. It wasn’t. People would behave obnoxiously and when called on it respond that they didn’t think they were acting like jerks and that we were being capricious and coming up with ad hoc rules and so on. So we spelled out the rules in progressively greater detail, and 13 years later they’re so long the galaxy is seriously in danger of running out of the electrons needed to display them on your screen. Believe me, I hate making up new rules. Unfortunately, the choice you have in this business is either you have lots of rules and people think you’re a jackbooted Nazi, or you have few rules and people think your enforcement is capricious and ad hoc. We don’t add more rules because of people like you, we add them because of people who need it explained to them what it means to be a jerk.

[emmaliminal]

@Ed_Zotti

People would behave obnoxiously and when called on it respond that they didn’t think they were acting like jerks and that we were being capricious and coming up with ad hoc rules and so on. So we spelled out the rules in progressively greater detail, and 13 years later they’re so long the galaxy is seriously in danger of running out of the electrons needed to display them on your screen.

This summarizes the part I don’t understand. You say the greater-detail thing has not, in thirteen years of applying it, fixed the problem it’s trying to address (jerkiness). Why do it even more?

If someone’s a jerk and responds with *anything *but stopping the jerkiness, why accommodate them?

[tim314]

I ordered a salad, I got a wheel of cheese. Of course I will tell the waiter that this is not what I ordered. If the waiter tells me that this is his restaurant and I can leave if I don’t like cheese, well. In that case I just don’t care about the nosy guy in the next table saying “yeah, cheese roolz. Eat your cheese, you communist”. I will continue to try to communicate intelligently with the waiter and see how far it takes me.

If you order salad and get cheese, and you’re not happy with the cheese, and the waiter refunds the money you paid, then the waiter has fulfilled his obligation to you.

If the salad/cheese was free, he never had any obligation to you in the first place.

As I said above, I have no problem with people complaining. In this analogy, I have no problem with you saying “Hey, I ordered salad, not cheese.”

What I have a problem with is you acting like you’re owed something. If you paid nothing, you aren’t owed anything. You can complain if you want, but don’t act like they’re indebted to you.

The only thing anyone is paying for here is not to see ads when they view the page. If you’re not seeing ads, you’re getting what you paid for. It’s fine to say “I think you should also do X”, but to say “You owe us X” is ridiculous. If I’m wrong in interpreting your statements as equivalent to “You owe us X”, please correct me, but I don’t think I’m wrong.

[AngryIrishLass]

Just to get this straight:

@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.

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.

Bolding mine. This rule only applies to when pitting a mod? Those pits are so few and far in between, I don’t understand the crisis.

[tim314]

I think this sums up my point:

There’s nothing wrong with complaining if you don’t like something. But it’s obnoxious to act like the SDMB staff owes you something in exchange for the fact that you’re using their free service for your own enjoyment.

Ed Zotti never asked you to post on this board. Whether or not he benefits from your participation is irrelevant. If I give you $20 because I enjoy handing out cash, I can’t say “Hey, I gave you $20 now you owe me a pizza.” I could say “Hey, it would be nice if you bought me a pizza, seeing as how I just gave you $20.” But I don’t owe you one unless I said in advance “I’ll give you a pizza for $20.”

[Shodan]

@Contrapuntal

When **Euthanasist **was warned, he did modify his behavior. He was told not to post misleading titles.

The problem was that he was told not to post misleading thread titles. What was actually meant was not to post misleading thread titles about subjects like Planned Parenthood because Lynn Bodoni feels defensive about abortions for minors.

The rest of us were also told that his intent was clear and therefore it was trolling. Also (later) that his intent was not clear, but it was trolling anyway. And some other stuff I have probably forgotten.

The problem is not that we need to have these things spelled out. It is that, for some reason, the mods seem to be reluctant to admit to what they are doing.

That, I suspect, is what sticks like sand in the craw of many of the better posters here. Yes, we fully understand that this is your messageboard, and you can run it as you see fit, and all of that. And the mods deserve respect for all their work, and all that. Fine. We get it.

But the whole purpose of this whole affair is to give the world the Straight Dope. No fear, no favoritism, all fact-based and truthful. No spin, no bias, no bull, from the smartest, hippest people on the planet.

Then something like this goes down, and it is fairly clear to everyone what is happening.

And the moderators of the best message board on Earth fold their arms, close their eyes, and keep repeating, “Nope, we are right, we are not contradicting ourselves, the mods are always right, if you don’t like it you can just fuck off.”

To put it another way, tim314, what we have here is a waiter who says,
“That is salad”.

Regards,
Shodan

[FinnAgain]

@Ed_Zotti

Our goal is not to prevent criticism of the staff. […]. If you don’t like the rules or think we apply them capriciously or have other abiding issues with how the board is run, this is not the place for you and you should go somewhere else.

What form can this criticism take if we’re not supposed to criticize the rules, their implementation or how the staff go about their jobs?

[Cagey_Drifter]

This thread saddens me. If something this fucking lame can’t get squared away, what are the chances of something like the Israel/Palestine thing getting sorted out? That’s got centuries of back-and-forth transgressions wrapped up in it. This is a goddamn message board. On the internet. Pixels on a screen. Where no one’s existence is being threatened. Fucking sad.

[NineToTheSky]

If I’ve got this right, this whole thing started because of two issues. One was an admin being laid in to in a major way. That has been addressed, perhaps not to everyone’s satisafaction, but a rule has been created to deal with that sort of situation.

The other was the lack of clarity, with reference to thread titles, as to what is permissible, and to what degree. I don’t think this has been officially addressed, let alone cleared up. Am I right?

ETA: Shodan posted while I was composing, only he puts it better.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@tim314

If I’m objecting to the specific words you chose, I use quote tags. If I’m objecting to the general attitude those words seem to represent, then sometimes the simplest way to communicate it is with a hypothetical quote that illustrates that attitude. I didn’t put it in quote tags, so there shouldn’t be any confusion about whether you actually said it. And if you don’t think that’s an accurate summation of what you’re trying to say, then by all means feel free to clarify your point. But really, I’m not trying to stick words in your mouth, I’m just using a rhetorical device that I feel accurately communicates what I’m taking from your words.

Your attitude seemed to be:

“The board administration ought to be grateful to us for posting and thus giving them a job, and ought to set whatever rules the board users want in order to keep us happy.”

I’m basing that on specific quotes like this one: which was a response to Ed basically saying that the administration has the right to set what rules they choose and the posters have to follow them if they want to participate.

If that’s an accurate summary of your attitude, then I find it rather obnoxious. For several reasons:

(1) The status of Ed’s job is none of your business. How about you let him worry about where his paycheck is coming from.

(2) You act like the SDMB staff owes you something. They don’t. You aren’t using the board as a favor to them, you’re using it because you enjoy it, same as all of us. If you pay for a service, you’re owed the service you paid for, not the gratitude of the people providing it. The board is available for free, so you’re owed exactly nothing.

(3) You act like there’s something inappropriate about a message board administrator expecting to set the rules for his own message board. There isn’t. That’s the way the world works.

If I’m not summarizing your position accurately, please explain to me where I’ve got it wrong.

Where I think you’re off base is in attributing to Sapo, or to anyone else, the pretense that he actually IS capable of having **Ed **fired. He is expressing an opinion as to a sensible policy for a messageboard owner to have. This constant iteration of how free Sapo or anyone should feel to leave the SDMB and never darken its door again misses the point, big time. Everyone understands that concept, and has always understood the concept. Ed, to his credit, is very clear that he pays no more heed to our opinions on board management and policy matters than he does to whether or not we like strawberries, so I’m not sure why the solution to many issues seems to be: If you don’t like it, you can leave today. I get that. Everyone gets that. We are DIS-CUSS-ING this subject, and we prefer discussing to leaving today, if that’s okay with you…we do understand that leaving is among our human rights, however. If you don’t want to discuss it any further, or any further with us, then I would say that it is only reasonable to state that you’re finished with the discussion, and have a nice day.

Much of the tone of remarks from TPTB seem to stem from a mostly personal and emotional response to being insulted in the Pit (or elsewhere) rather than a response rooted in sound business practices, which only IMO serves to encourage people to respond in heated emotional terms, the opposite of what I think you’re asking for.

[Ed_Zotti]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I think this is more telling than you know. Your position, as I understand it, is that even if the vast majority of Dopers disagree, or even if all 20,000 Dopers somehow miraculously expressed a unanimous opinion contrary to your own (“in any case”), you would prefer to see the SD go down in flames than to amend your policy, which largely puffs up your ego, for sure, and the egos of your staff, and no doubt pleases some portion of current Dopers, at the expense of those Dopers who disagree with this policy decision. If the numbers were to shake out as I’m speculating here (and I have no idea how many Dopers do or do not agree with you) and threaten the well-being of this site, you would still rather see it die than tweak this policy?

As you well understand, you’re putting this in extreme terms. I don’t think more than a handful of posters would (or will) walk because we don’t allow the Pit to be a free-for-all. But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose all 20,000 Dopers were to sign the following petition:

“We believe the Pit should be a free-for-all, with no rules or repercussions whatsoever, and that the only recourse of the staff should be to shut down the most out-of-control threads, and if we can’t have this we are all going to quit posting here and take our business elsewhere, so help us God”

… then I would say: I’m sorry, that’s not the kind of business I want to be in, so good luck finding a new place to hang, and have a nice life. And if our monthly MB traffic dropped to zero, and my CL bosses called me on the carpet and told me, Ed, you’re being too stiff-necked about this, you need to give the people what they want, then I’d tell them they needed to find somebody else to do this job, and I’d see if there were any openings at Starbucks or McDonald’s. So, does that answer your question?

Needless to say, I don’t for one second believe that more than a tiny minority of posters think the Pit should be no-holds-barred. We’re sure not going to do it that way as long as I’m managing this site. If people have a problem with that, and think if they carry on about it long enough I’m going to change my mind, they’re mistaken, and their time here will be frustrating. They’ll save us all a lot of trouble if they go somewhere else.

[Una_Persson]

@Bear_Nenno

See, he’s trapped in a time where people came to the Straight Dope to read his columns and articles. Nobody gives a shit anymore. The world has wiki. It’s moved on.

Oh, really? :dubious:

[Guinastasia]

@tim314

There’s an ignore button?

Really, I suppose I could ignore the posters like Bear_Nenno and Sapo who are so offended that Ed would have the audacity to think he can set the rules of the message board he runs. I could also ignore the guy in a restaurant who thinks the fact that he’s paying for a salad entitles him to be rude to the waiter. But I’d be happier if the guy would just knock it off already, or else get up and leave the restaurant.

The problem is, he wants to change those rules in the middle of a thread.
So question-are we basically no longer allowed to Pit the mods at ALL, when we disagree with their actions-or just in that particular thread? Is starting a new thread to do so still allowed? Because let’s face it-you’re always going to get people disagreeing with mod actions, Ed. And this new rule is only going to make it worse.

[ToeJam]

@Guinastasia

So question-are we basically no longer allowed to Pit the mods at ALL, when we disagree with their actions-or just in that particular thread? Is starting a new thread to do so still allowed? Because let’s face it-you’re always going to get people disagreeing with mod actions, Ed. And this new rule is only going to make it worse.

@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.

Hope that helps.

[Ed_Zotti]

@emilyforce

This summarizes the part I don’t understand. You say the greater-detail thing has not, in thirteen years of applying it, fixed the problem it’s trying to address (jerkiness). Why do it even more?

If someone’s a jerk and responds with *anything *but stopping the jerkiness, why accommodate them?

I’m sorry, I wasn’t being clear. The rules we have work well enough. We haven’t added to the registration agreement in quite a while. (Yes, I know we need to amend it now that we’ve gone back to free posting, but I’ve had my hands full with other things - I’ll get to it soon.) Virtually everyone understands the rules and abides by them. The conversation is entertaining and informative. We do, however, have a few issues in a few threads with a few people, and that’s why we’re having this discussion. With all respect, I don’t see any other way to do this than what I’m doing right now.

[Darth_Nader]

Please sticky this. Don’t hide the fucking rules, man.

[Ed_Zotti]

@Guinastasia

So question-are we basically no longer allowed to Pit the mods at ALL, when we disagree with their actions-or just in that particular thread?

Is starting a new thread to do so still allowed? Because let’s face it-you’re always going to get people disagreeing with mod actions, Ed. And this new rule is only going to make it worse.

You’re still allowed to Pit mods when you disagree with their actions. You should start a new thread for that purpose. In the thread where the mod action occurred, you can disagree, provided you keep it civil - this is one of the times we may invoke our experimental NPR procedure, so we can sort things out calmly. Does that make sense?

[aldiboronti]

@Ed_Zotti

You’re still allowed to Pit mods when you disagree with their actions. You should start a new thread for that purpose. In the thread where the mod action occurred, you can disagree, provided you keep it civil - this is one of the times we may invoke our experimental NPR procedure, so we can sort things out calmly. Does that make sense?

Sort of. I just hope the new procedure doesn’t make confusion worse confounded, so to speak. Posters are already unsure about the latitude allowed in the Pit, I don’t think this will clarify matters much.

My understanding is that one should not attack a moderator in the same thread for a ruling he/she has made in that thread (whether it be in the Pit or not). Isn’t that the crux of the matter?

[Autolycus]

@Una_Persson

Oh, really? :dubious:

YA RLY!

sorry…couldn’t resist.

[ShadowFacts]

Some of you people are really amazing, I have to say. Personally, I don’t think this new rule is a great idea as it seems to muddy some of the waters more than clear them up, but…

1. Can we wait a bit to see it in action before declaring it an unmitigated disaster? Maybe it will be wonderful and we’ll have a Pit Paradise! Who knows? Not you and not me, that’s who.

2. Get over your grievances with mods/admin. Some of them are great, some of them are not. Sometimes they screw up and don’t apologize for it as they should. Sometimes the stuff they do is blatantly unfair. Like 99% of the people on this board, they hate to admit when they are wrong. Get. Over. It. Life goes on. “I don’t know what I can say in the Pit anymore without getting banned!” Please.

3. I refuse to post anything about Opal or buckeyes here.