In his preamble to announcing the New Pit Order, Ed emphasizes the parent company’s shaky financial status and the need to make the Dope’s sales effort pay.
I’ll bet there was some brainstorming at a Creating Loafing Media meeting, and some subgenius decided that one way to attract advertisers was to tone down the Pit a couple of notches. Maybe Procter & Gamble nixed plans to sell Pampers in banner ads because the membership was just too unruly for their demographic. :dubious:
Sometimes the efforts to squeeze profits out of this board remind me of an analogy I read in one of John McDonald’s Travis McGee stories. Travis is posing as a client while trying to get information out of a sleazy private eye, who in turn is wondering how to scam Travis, viewing him with “the anguish of a toothless crocodile eyeing a fat brown dog on the riverbank”.
Maybe we can have a forum called “The BBQ Pit MILD”? If anything, the Pit is probably my favorite forum. I still remember the week we had “Pit Rules Suspended”? That was a blast. These new rules can only end in more bannings, I think, if anything.
It still seems to me it would be simpler and less confusing to close the offending thread with a note that interested posters may continue discussion in a new thread in the appropriate forum. IIRC this has worked well enough in the past.
I got missed in your big round of answers, and I’m really curious on this one: the title of the thread thing. Could you make that boundary clearer? I’m not asking for a “bright line” but there are about 3 examples of what, before this current situation, I’d have considered perfectly fine “eye-catching, good advertising but not 100% accurate” thread titles currently active. Certainly none of them are any more or less “deceptive” than the Planned Parenthood one that kicked this whole thing to the forefront. And yet none of them have had the kind of stern warning Lynn delivered.
Another boundary I’d appreciate if you could address is the “No pitting a mod in the thread where the mod action occurs” one. Frankly, I think it’s a good rule–but it’s (as far as I know) brand-new.
I am also interested in this, since, so far as I can tell, my question in the original thread has remained unanswered. What is the new rule with regard to thread titles’ accuracy, and how, if at all, is it different than the “old” rule? (That is, the rule under which Lynn’s admonishment was issued?
I quoted this in full because it’s well stated. Really, it comes down to the individual poster’s maturity and objectivity re the thread topic or issue at hand. I’ve gotten wound up and spewed stuff (but I’m so boring, even my spew would never attract the attention of the mildest mod). I’ve have my feelings terribly hurt on this board, but a good night’s sleep and a reality check does wonders.
I think the mods here have an impossible task and I appreciate all they do. I think they fight an uphill battle against posters who have issues with authority, any authority, posters who like to nitpick, posters who become distressed if they feel they’ve stepped out of line, posters who think that annihilating someone’s character for a difference of opinion is reasonable behavior. I wouldn’t have the job for love or money. Good luck to you–I think it’s worth a try, but I don’t see it ending well. (sorry).
Just a new rule for mods to apply haphazardly and for people to get pissed over.
It does nothing to address the matter of allegedly trolling thread titles.
It does nothing to address Lynn’s abuse of power by calling Euthanasiast a troll and then winking out of discussion.
It does nothing to stop verbal abuse towards mods or anyone else, as it can always be done in an OP.
It confuses the rules of the pit. Now one has not only to pay attention to what forum one is, but also one has to check if the Pitting is green or blue.
It creates one more rule for mods to trip on and for the merry band of habitual dissenters to second guess and whine about. One more rule to be applied haphazardly and for mods with an agenda (yes, you know who you are) to abuse.
As an only positive, it does address the issue of responding to moderation in the Pit. Now we now you need to start a new thread to insult them. This is wise and fair and although it sounds a lot like common sense, it clearly wasn’t clear enough to all. Now it is in print.
In summary, a truly ill conceived idea. I hope it works, but I think it won’t. Did it really you a week to come up with this?!
ETA: Just scrap the whole thing and leave it at “No talking back to mods. Always start a new pit thread”. Tell us that you spent the other 6 days and 23.9 hours playing mail chess.
Why would you need to impose draconian rules in the first place? What it is that is broken and that you want to fix?
The pit has been in existence for many years, (with only occasional closing of complete train wrecks) without major detrimental issue for the board as far as I can tell (and at the contrary, I believe it served its purpose as a safety valve quite well).
Why do you feel that at this point, either draconian rules, or, as an alternative, the new rule you’re proposing are required?
How did we survive until now without this basic fire prevention?
Bad results are unavoidable on a message board. Better for them to be circumscribed in a clearly defined place, namely the Pit, and preferably without adding new confusing rules that will likely cause more “bad results”.
If a moderator decides that a discussion should continue but Pit rules should no longer apply he/she should move it to the appropriate Forum, but I really don’t believe they ever should.
I didn’t miss it, and probably many others didn’t, either. Our questions were giving ** Ed Zotti ** ample opportunity to address this point if he felt like it.
Ed, I think you should go back and enjoy Steven’s post again. Seems moving the thread is a much less complicated and obvious solution to this supposed problem.
I’m curious if you have an example of another message board whose level of civility you would be trying to equal?
Would someone explain to me how a new NPR designation accomplishes anything more effectively than the “Don’t be a jerk” and the “If a mod calls you on being a jerk, stop it and don’t do it again” rules? I am genuinely confused here.
QFT. I hope the idea works, but I’m not holding my breath. I truly believe dopers are a cut above the general public, and we too can’t keep our shit together sometimes.
Besides, this reeks of pandering to the offenderati. Speaking personally, the pit has been a valuable tool for me to develop a thicker skin, and I’d hate to see it toned-down or abolished.
Good luck with that. You’re going to monitor posters’ intent now? You’re going to distinguish genuine over-the-top abusivenes in the Pit (you know, the whole reason the Pit exists) from faux over-the-top abusiveness cunningly designed to get the Pit thread shut down in short order? This is an invitation to trolls. “Come here, go nuts, and pull up a lawn chair while holding your stopwatch waiting for Mods to shut the thread down now that you’ve had your say.” And just so you know, many posters are cleverer than I am, and won’t advertise their evil intent right in the Pit thread itself. Some clever rhetoricians (and the word “Regards” pops up in my mind for some reason here) will play you like a six-year-old plays with his Christmas harmonica, with irritating incessance, and there’s not going to be a damned thing you can do because you gave him the gift in the first place.
There was no such meeting and I received no such directive. I do confess to occasionally harboring the thought: Gawd, I hope nobody else in the company ever reads this.
I’m not trying to put you off, but this is a side issue. The real problem was the intemperate response to a mod action. If the poster had simply protested in a reasonable way none of this would have happened. Let’s take up the question of titles in a separate thread.
Up till now I thought it was pretty well covered in the rule I quoted in my OP. Then again, the original rules for this board basically consisted of “Don’t be a jerk,” and you see how long they are now. It’s not possible to enumerate every possible type of behavior we would consider jerklike, and we don’t want to get into a situation where unenumerated jerklike things are therefore considered OK. Please, this job is tough enough - I don’t want to get into an endless debate about fine points and hypotheticals.
That’s not what I was trying to do, and if I’d posted clearly, that would have come across. I got distracted and didn’t finish the question. My bad.
What I was trying to ask is: Another boundary I’d appreciate if you could address is the “No pitting a mod in the thread where the mod action occurs” one. Frankly, I think it’s a good rule–but it’s (as far as I know) brand-new. But the poster’s offense was, in part, that he broke a rule that didn’t exist until after the offense was committed." This seems to happen from time to time in the Pit. Could you address this issue (perhaps in a secondary thread). It doesn’t happen all that often, but when it does happen it seems to set off a major user backlash.
Well, Ed says this is not the case and I have no reason to think he’s a liar, but my spidey sense is still tingling. There has to be a reason for this ill-conceived attempt to fix something that this long-time Pitizen doesn’t think is even a little broken.
My initial response on reading the OP was, “Rules help control the fun!”
I got distracted and didn’t finish the question. My bad.