If I understand Dex correctly, he was saying that the decision to ban “cunt” is non-negotiable. A done deal. Ain’t gonna change. Like it or lump it. Ed wanted it, this is his board, end of discussion.
If that is the case, then it strikes me as good that the rule is as clear-cut as it is. Because it would not have occurred to me that calling someone a “cunt” irrevocably breaks down the level of civility (even in the Pit) while calling someone a “syphilitic fucknugget” does not.
I don’t see it, so a clear rule is necessary. That doesn’t mean I agree, However -
Yeah, I have no idea where I got that craaaazy idea. Oh wait, here’s the OP:
**Angry Lurker **
Guest
*Can we start calling each cunts in the pit again please?
I think enough time has passed that Ed and Lynn can save face by claiming it was an experiment and they are happy - pleased even! - to return to the status quo. Where inappropriate language is one again appropriate *
That’s all it’s about, 100%, nothing else. **It’s about calling other posters “cunts”. ** (oh and harassing Dex, sure)
Yes, I do. As do most of the mods. I think that by confining moderator criticism to civility in ATMB, we have more positive responses from moderators. When those criticisms were bathed in vile language, the mods didn’t respond well. (Do you respond better to the cop who says, “You were speeding, sir?” or to the cop who says, “Fuck you, you were speeding.”) It was difficult to overlook the personal aspects of the language and get to the nub of the complaint.
I think the Pit is a more reasonable place, where people can still flame each other, but know that there are limits. I think that the vast majority of posters can get along quite well in the Pit without saying “fuck you” to other posters. And I think the vast majority of posters prefer not to have “fuck you” said at them. So, yes, I do.
(The rest of you, please note: I’m happy to respond to new issues. My former gripe was about people who are just re-hashing.)
Flat and simply: You’re dead wrong. You’re the one revising history. There was lengthy discussion over many weeks within the mod group, and most mods agreed with Ed. Some wanted to go further. The two who didn’t agree with the final majority decision, left modding the Pit.
Giraffe: There are two ways to tackle moderating. One is by generalized, vague rules and let the mods make decisions. The other is by trying to set minimum rules that provide guidelines. We started with the first, and we’ve found the need to evolve more specific rules as we go on. I cited the “don’t be a jerk” rule because that’s the obvious one. But every one of our rules is pretty much of that nature. “No personal insults outside the Pit.” We don’t define “personal insult,” we leave it to moderator discretion. We come up with a rule like “Criticism of moderators belongs in ATMB to avoid personal insults” and we get people infuriated over what “criticism of moderators” means and when we’re mods and when we’re posters and… What you see as “the occasional chastized poster” has been “the army of protestors,” all their friends leaping to their defense, often screaming and yelling (calling the moderators vile names.) That’s what led to where we are. We tried your way, we still try to do things that way, but there are some areas where it just hasn’t worked… and we need to implement specific rules.
That’s not the issue; you’d also need posters behaving mostly rationally. That was my recent epiphany. I have always assumed that the posters were honest and deserving of answers and responses. I’ve learned in the last few months that there are a minority of posters who usually yell the loudest, but who are, in fact, not looking for honest discussion. They are, indeed, trolling when it comes to moderator issues.
Yes, I probably should be issuing warnings to the people in this thread who are trolling and mod-baiting. However, I’m actually on vacation this weekend, and that would take more of my time than it’s worth. And, of course, would stir up the wrath of all their friends. So, I’ll let it pass. We’ve not brought accusations of trolling before against people who are just venting over and over and over and over and over and [insert 10 more "over"s] about moderator or board issues, and I think it would be a bad precedent to do so now (although “trolling” is what it certainly is.)
This is the second funniest line I’ve seen in a long time. My mistake. I thought the OP was asking whether calling other posters “cunt” could be allowed. I thought that was asked and answered, often. I guess I made the silly error of assuming that the thread title, the OP, and the majority of posts was what the thread was about. So, I dunno, you think all the rest of us are thread-shitting?
OK, the question has been asked, considered, and answered. Often. It’s now done. Those of you who still want to vent about it, go to the Pit and you have my permission to start a thread where you vent. Only don’t expect any mods to read it. And, seems to me, that the argument that you can’t possibly have discussion (even flaming) without calling the other person “cunt” or saying “fuck you”.,.l well, I have a larger vocabulary than that.
If you’re on vacation, does this mean that you’re posting as a poster, not as a moderator, and that you can therefore be pitted for the pretty serious supercilious attitude you’ve shown in this thread? Because it beggars belief that you consider your tone here acceptable if it’s given in an unofficial capacity.
Because eventually either someone will say, “Jumpin jehosophat if it matters that much to you, fine, the rules rescinded.” or “After much consideration and brain-using we’ve decided that our intent was misguided and we’re rescinding the rule.” I want the latter but I’ll take the former.
And it’s all moot anyway because the SDMB is living on borrowed time.
I should have explained myself better. When I said that it was a sudden decision, I meant that it was a sudden decision from the point of view of the membership, not the mods. I would have no way to know whether the mods were discussing this or the war in Iraq.
And honestly, Dex, with the very utmost respect, I think that could be a symptom of why communications are breaking down between you and us. It comes down to point of view. Members don’t know about mod meetings and discussions and things like that. We’re trying to explain how things look from our point of view.
Speaking only for myself (but possibly for others as well) the problem is not with whether the old Pit rules will be re-established — although I agree with pseudotriton ruber ruber that “troll” is worse than “cunt” (especially coming from admins and mods as nondisciplinary ad hominems in ATMB, of all places.) That’s not the issue any more. It is clear, and we understand, that nothing will change.
The issue is that your reasoning is not logical. You won’t acknowledge the obvious, which is that banning certain words does not in any way contribute to raising the tenor of the Pit. Many examples have been given. It just doesn’t.
And, really, banning “cunt” can’t hurt. I don’t understand why you dudes can’t see that. You have already said you don’t want to use it, then why fight for it to be allowed?
No one is fighting for it to be allowed. (Hasn’t that been said before? Why, yes!) We are merely stating the obvious, which is that banning it does nothing toward raising the tenor of the Pit, which was his argument. We aren’t asking him to change the rules. We know he won’t. We’re just asking him to man up to the fact that his argument is weak. At least, that’s all I’m doing.
Mostly the principle of the thing, really. But most of my effort has been in trying to figure out why strong language is banned, given that the reasoning behind the decision and the decision itself seem to be sort of disconnected.
As it happens, I think banning cunt (and other such words) could hurt; mainly because I don’t care whether people call me a cunt or not, but I do get annoyed at other insults. If cunt is banned, then when people are annoyed with me, they’ll select from those other insults. I quite like having a form of insults I can readily ignore be allowed, because, well, I can readily ignore them. Wouldn’t you prefer those who would insult you be ineffective?
One thing they teach you in teacher college is that if you’re not going to change your mind on something, an explanation of your reasoning is often counterproductive.
Dex didn’t just say, fairly calmly, “No, the rules are the same, and your commentary still won’t change anything.” He included an explanation for the rule that came across as unreasonable and condescending, and backed it up with some ridiculous accusations of trollery that he somehow thinks are okay because he’s on vacation.
Here’s an example of what you could say as a mod that would not invite further argument: “We appreciate what you’ve said, and we’ve read all your posts and considered them. However, we have no plans to change the rules or to explain them further.”
Note the lack of specious reasoning therein; note the lack of insults.
I don’t want to call someone cunt. I will probably want, on extremely rare occasions, to tell someone “fuck you” or the like: people are far ruder to me here than they ever are in real life, and I respond in kind sometimes. Unless that deeper issue of rudeness is dealt with, I believe it’s foolish to ban specific pithy Anglo-Saxonisms like “fuck you.”
Nonetheless, I recognize that Dex is the bartender and Ed’s the owner, and it’s their rules in this joint. It’s just when folks follow up the rules with a silly and insulting explanation that I find it difficult to accept it without an argument.
You. Just. Don’t. Get. It. Do. You?
(Hint: once, yet again, stop taking everything so damned literally)
And for the record, I rarely use the word “cunt.” Nor do I find it all that offensive.
I cannot believe that both of us remember that. Most of my posts disappear into my “fog bank.” I agreed to give up another word that you knew was sometimes used to demean. To the best of my knowledge, both of us have kept our promises.
The pain is not really in the word itself, I release you from you promise, Lib. Since the SDMB is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, I will continue to explain that words are symbols of things and not the things themselves when there is a misunderstanding of semantics.
When people get upset about name-calling or saying “fuck you,” it is a little like being afraid that shaking a map of California is going to cause earthquakes.
I do see the logic behind this reasoning, and I certainly wouldn’t expect the moderators to be entirely unaffected by insults directed against them; however, doesn’t this give off a pretty creepy Potemkin village vibe to you? Because to me, it does, looking an awful lot like an attempt to sugarcoat the real state of affairs in order to appease the authorities. It’s not like this is doing anything to make the sentiment, the anger behind such insults go away; at best, the surface is changed, becoming a bit more opaque to such feelings, so they become a little harder to see. But they’re there just as well, and just speaking from personal experience, I haven’t noticed any great difference in offensiveness, content-wise; but then, I never was too bothered by cunts and fuck-yous.
Besides, if your reasoning is now ‘it stops the mods from over-reacting’, the analogy you gave is somewhat ass-backwards, since I’m not exactly the authority figure in the exchange with the policeman. And no, I probably wouldn’t want to tell the police officer to fuck off; but I also wouldn’t like to look at you guys like police officers.
How about this proposal: install an optional language filter, so every user (including the mods) would be able to decide whether they want to see words like ‘cunt’, or something like ‘c**t’ or maybe even some fanciful fluffy replacement, like it’s done on the Something Awful forums, I believe. To me, this would seem to serve the same purpose of painting user’s post in somewhat nicer colours without genuinely changing content and sentiment, which is all the arbitrary exclusion of certain swears does now.
It’s not that I am terribly bothered by the question what I can and can’t say to other posters (at least, as long as the restrictions concern only such relatively inconsequential areas); however, the justification you just gave does seem a little off to me, in a vaguely threatening manner – implying that, if we don’t appease the moderators and treat them well enough, they just might flip and do something they regret.
Now, that such things may happen is a consequence of human nature – sometimes, we just loose our shit when pushed far enough. But to take this as grounds for curtailing people’s abilities to push, rather than attempting to find ways to deal with such situations when they arise, is to pre-emptively put the blame for one’s own behaviour on other people; and there is no fruitful discussion to be had if that’s the context you want to establish, since we can’t approach them on equal footing if users are to be held responsible for moderators’ tempers.
I vote to make Left Hand of Dorkness an admin. Just turn the whole thing over to him and Gaudere. Honestly, if people want to raise the tenor of the board, then like anything else it starts at the top.
You have the wisdom and insight of Wittgenstein. You’re a good egg.
Well, I’m more interested in whether or not this would be seen as a suitable replacement to the current situation (and if not, why) than I’m genuinely hoping for it to be installed.
