# Discussion of Pit rules **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 27, 2002, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051 "2002-07-27T02:18:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![whitetho](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whitetho/32/1059_2.png) [@whitetho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whitetho)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/61 "2002-07-27T22:16:49Z")
I’ve always considered The BBQ Pit to be a blight upon the good name of the _Chicago Reader_. (Count me in the “What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?” camp.) However, I assume that in this discussion we have “come to reform the pit, not to bury it”, so I’ll suggest that in the future no thread can be started without the written permission of Uncle Cecil himself. All requests must be accompanied by a $100 filing fee. Non-refundable. ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2002, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/62 "2002-07-27T23:35:46Z")
As having been the initiator to one of the parody melt downs in the last days I will now with intended self-deprecation say that the parody link rule is most sensible. I initially argued against it in Fenris ensuing discussion thread. When Lynn posted her judgment at the end of that thread I was sort of thinking ‘fine so the mods are on the softy’s side on this one – whatever.’ I made a mental note to post a link in some obscure way if I ever should post another parody. Then I thought a little about it. I completely misjudged the ‘obviousness’ in my parody and managed to both put egg on faces where thus was not intended and incense people over my words instead of those I was parodying. IOW my parody had nowhere close to the intended effect save show how offensive and despicable those kinds of opinions are. As if we didn’t know that already. A link would have been a good preventive remedy. And not a discrete hidden one, but an obvious one. It’s not just preventive it’s even beneficial to the parody, as a few people said in Fenris thread - what is the point of a parody if people don’t know what the subject being ridiculed is. Then again Sparc isn’t likely to be posting that many parody threats after that one, in difference to real trolls, I can’t say that it felt great to get severely flamed for opinions I don’t hold and unintentionally make fools out of people that had naught to do with my grudge. Not to mention how redundant the parody seems as a style for the moment. Just thought I might say that since it’s been on my mind a bit over the last days. Sparc ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/63 "2002-07-28T00:29:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I think that the hate speech thing means no saying “Fenris, while not regarding any of his wit or charm, is a pustulant shit for brains and is a burden to this board”. In the pit we attack other posters. But I think the idea is to attack what they say and not launch attacks at them personally. \*\* This illustrates one reason why I think the new “No Hate Speech” rule is a very bad idea, especially without extensive and detailed clarification. The definition of “hate speech” ranges from fanatical PC rectitude to First Amendment absolutism. One person’s “hate speech” is another person’s vigorous debate. Moreover, the definition of “hate speech” is also intensely personal. Anyone recall the recent “Breeder” exchange? Any amount of legitimate, though perhaps edgy, debate could be construed to run afoul of a “no hate speech” ban. A GD thread on allocating health care funding could properly discuss whether funding for AIDS research and treatment ought to be cut. However, someone advocating such a cut could easily be accused of “hate speech” depending on precisily how it’s defined. More fundamentally, it’s a mistake to try and silence hate speech so that we can pretend it doesn’t exist. Sunlight _is_ the best disinfectant. It’s quite instructive to see the case made against various hateful positions if for no other reason than as a reminder that those ideas are still out there and that they must be actively addressed. This doesn’t mean that someone can’t be banned for being a jerk. That, however, is a different and much less chilling proposition than making expressing a hateful/unpoluplar idea a bannable offense. In any case, I’d much rather know what someone really thinks rather than have him or her hide it under a veneer of politeness. If it’s obvious that Poster X has some bizzare ideas about short people, it really puts their posts on Randy Newman into perspective. We could, I suppose, codify “hate speech” as a sort of seven words you can’t say on the SDMB. That wouldn’t be all that chilling to free discussion. However, I’m not sure it would really accomplish that much. As for the “lawn chair” thing, it hardly seems worth an explicit rule. It might be slightly annoying to some people, but it’s really pretty innocuous. I’d think enforcing it would be more trouble to the mods than it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/64 "2002-07-28T00:30:34Z")
Why not require that parodies have “a parody” somewhere in the thread title (as well as a link in the OP) - that way those who do not enjoy parodies can be in no doubt about the type of thread they are opening? Personally, I find the “lawn chair” posts in the Pit no more annoying than I find the “me too” posts in other forums - they neither contribute to nor detract from the central issue, but if that alone was a reason to prohibit them, then we should seriously be considering banning other “waste of bandwidth” post/threads such as post parties and “why was X banned” threads. The Pit, like other forums, tends to go through cycles. Just as we periodically have a rash of new “ask the” threads being started, clusters of new abortion threads being started, or multiple threads about the “moon landing hoax” being started, from time to time we get a concentration of parody threads being started in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/65 "2002-07-28T01:27:28Z")
Re: the “Lawn chair” posts (and for that matter the “pretzel vendor”/“Who’s got beer” variations of same): I really, really don’t like these. I’d love to see them gone, not because of the post padding or the social aspect, but because it’s usually a form of flat-out bullying. Think about it. The usual MO for these things is that a relarive newbie (or other person with a low post count) has started a pit thread about an established poster. In that situation, lawn chairing is essentially a form of social intimidation: “We’re sticking together, regardless of what you’re argument is. If you cross us, you’ll regret it.” Now, most times, it turns out that the low-post-count person doesn’t yet understand the culture here. In a lot of those circumstances, they probably wouldn’t fit in regardless. However, the whole lawn chair/silent presence thing tends to define the whole discussion in terms of a single, inexperienced poster being menaced by a giant, monolithic “them”. That sort of premise is guaranteed to bring out all sorts of bad stuff, because it’s tough to argue with the tyranny of the majority -and if you see it as tyranny, you’re going to call it tyranny, because what do you have to lose? However, I’d much rather see the rule address “silent presence” posts generally, rather than specifying one or two sets of behavior, even simply as examples. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/66 "2002-07-28T01:44:15Z")
[Considering the relative civility of this thread, I’m wondering why no one’s moved it to ATMB. :)] ---
**Author:** ![45\_70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/5f9b8f/32.png) [@45\_70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/45_70)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/67 "2002-07-28T02:20:03Z")
The " pull up a chair" is remarkably similar to talking to hear your own voice. Trying to have adult behavior can be a real pain in the ass when the adults are idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/68 "2002-07-28T02:56:41Z")
I personally don’t like the “pull up a chair” thing but I think it is a mistake to disallow it. It serves a purpose. When somebody says it, they are in effect saying that they are interested in the thread and its developments. Only sometimes is this a negative or an unworthy thing. It’s negative when it serves simply to stoke acrimony and bile, and egg on participants who otherwise might settle down. For example, the poster **Charybdis** and myself may be engaged in a heated exchange about the proper use of a left-handed saddle stretcher in GD. In a moment of regrettable fury **Charybdis** might state that all people who employ the funicular method of left-handed saddle stretching don’t deserve to stretch saddles. This is the last straw as far as I’m concerend and filled with righteous wrath I go to the pit and call **Charybdis** out for his unconscionable assertion, and demand him to come hither and face my wrath and apologize or justify himself. Being the slinking worm that he is **Charybdis** hides sheepishly, and the thread slowly sinks. Fortunately however the left-handed saddle stretching community of the SDMB is firmly on my side (could it be any other way?) and the thread is kept near the top, as people announce their pulling up of chairs. **Charybdis** is further chastened with each and every posting. Each chair-pulling lets him know that people are interested and waiting for him to come and face the music. As the moral weight of each chair pushing falls onto **Charybdis’** shoulders he realizes that he must face the music publically. So, out he comes and apologizes. I’ve seen this happen a number of times. Also chair pulling is a way people let you know they’re interested but not inclined to participate. I welcome such sentiments in threads I OP, as they’re a form of validation. Of course, it has it’s ugly side as well, as we’ve all seen, and I think that’s the reason the practice is now against the rules. But, I think it is a mistake. People will simply find another term. I humbly submit that the practice of pulling up chairs is not something you want to add to the rules. I humbly submit that the rule that you really want is: \*\*Do not provoke or egg on third party arguments [/quote] If you have a side, an issue, or wish you to participate meaningfully please do so, but simply provoking or cheering on a confrontation is trollish and a violation of the Prime Directive non-jerkitude rule. Thank you for your consideration. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/69 "2002-07-28T05:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*It serves a purpose. When somebody says it, they are in effect saying that they are interested in the thread and its developments. \*\* Why is it necessary for someone to publicly declare an interest in a thread? Why does this matter to anyone? If you want to subscribe to the thread, do so: there’s a convenient button at the bottom of the screen. Posting is not necessary. Public declarations of “interest” serve no legitimate purpose. The example you give is off-base: public declarations of interest will not have the effect discussed. Rather, you’re talking about public declarations of **disapproval** , which are not affected by the new rules. ---
**Author:** ![partly\_warmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@partly\_warmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/partly_warmer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/70 "2002-07-28T05:37:42Z")
> [@](#): > > partly\_warmer, although I think you’re probably right about people who have been here a bit not reading those stickies, they would never be read at all if they were only in the FAQ. When a new member is ready to post, at least those stickies - which have fairly specific titles - will be right there for them to look at. It would be better, of course, if the content of those stickies was displayed during the registration process, but even so, I think they’re useful as they are. I don’t want to defend my point so much as give it just enough airplay so the cost isn’t downplayed. 1. As a new member, I ignored most of the stickies. I think this is typical. The board has about 24,000 members, and the most read sticky in “About This Message Board” is about 3400, and I suspect most of those are repeat viewings. Most are much fewer. A FAQ couldn’t work any worse than this, especially if stragetically located. Probably a good many of the sticky views are moderators and other members explicitly referring somebody to the rules. They could just as easily refer them to a FAQ. 2. The cost of displaying a sticky is not just the time to display it. To it must be added the chance that the sticky has bumped a thread that otherwise would have been on the first page. If stickies take up about 8% of a viewable page, as they do in “General Questions”, that means there’s up to an 8% chance they eventually cause an entirely new page to be displayed. For various reasons, I’d estimate it’s more like 4%, but that’s still a huge amount of overhead for practically no gain whatsoever. 3. Alternatively, the stickies could disappear after awhile. Or be rotated, or combined. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/71 "2002-07-28T12:15:14Z")
Gaudere Once again, you’ve made a compelling argument. A parody is rather useless for those who don’t know it is a parody. And you’re right about the God thing; I’d forgotten your original line of reasoning. I just have to grit my teeth and rise above it. Lynn Nevermind. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/72 "2002-07-28T12:17:23Z")
Hmmm… Just a quick question for clarification, Gaudere. As I understand it, the interjection “MLK, Jr. on a flaming stick!” would not be out of line, is that right? ---
**Author:** ![Pammipoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/87869e/32.png) [@Pammipoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pammipoo)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/73 "2002-07-28T13:30:01Z")
As for the lawnchair thing, what about a compromise? What really annoys me is when that’s the entire context of their reply, that they’re gathering around to watch. What if lawnchairs were allowed, as long as they were followed up by a reasonable post? Here’s an example: Poster A-This board sucks! They should never have put Lynn in charge of things,she’s a woman, and everyone knows women cant be in charge! Poster B: :: Pulls up a chair to watch Poster A get their ass kicked:: Poster C: :: Pulls up a chair to watch:: This is completely off base. For one thing, the board is free, if you dont like it, leave. Etc, etc. The way I see it, it adds claim to the post that “hey, this is pretty stupid. You’re wasting your time here.” So long as it’s backed up, I think it should be allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/74 "2002-07-28T14:10:32Z")
My take, in no particular order: 1: No Lawnchairs: well, okay. Those posts are mildly irritating to me as well, so in theory the rule is a fine one. The problem is, it seems more of a stopgap measure than anything else–when the particular phrasing is ixnayed, those who really feel the need to announce their lawnchairness will simply find other phrasings that amount to the same thing. Expect a lot of testing of the line, and when one phrasing “works”, then THAT will be driven into the ground and straight out through the proverbial China. 2: Parody links: about time. 3: Keep your ignore list, if any, to yourself: also good, for reasons well covered. 4: No hate speech. Unnecessary, and likely to cause its own brand of headaches. The problem has been self-correcting in every instance I’ve seen of it here–poster starts using it, and the resulting pile-on (pile-ons are neither good nor bad; like Godzilla, they are merely a force of nature in message board climes. History shows again and again…) inspires hate speaker well over the line to either meltdown, or other banworthiness. The only thing a formal rule stickied about it will do is inspire overheated posters to accuse each other of it in stupidly flimsy situations–and while I trust the admins’ judgment in such situations, I simply prefer to not see a bunch of posts of people saying “Oh, well that sounds a little…hateful. I seem to recall a rule about that! Ha ha! ::rolleyes::” My loose change. With it and sixty cents, you can get a candy bar from the average vending machine. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/75 "2002-07-28T14:47:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by partly\_warmer \* > > 1. As a new member, I ignored most of the stickies. I think this is typical. The board has about 24,000 members, and the most read sticky in “About This Message Board” is about 3400, and I suspect most of those are repeat viewings. Most are much fewer. A FAQ couldn’t work any worse than this, especially if stragetically located. Probably a good many of the sticky views are moderators and other members explicitly referring somebody to the rules. They could just as easily refer them to a FAQ. You may suspect that, but there’s no proof either way. Also, the FAQ has been around for years, and I suspect (!) that fewer people bothered to click on it than have clicked on the stickies. (Of course, since the FAQ is not on a thread but another part of the site, it’s a little tougher for us to tell how many views it has.) In any event, it’s all your opinion - your opinion is that there should either be no stickies or that there should be one or two combined stickies, and that’s reasonable. > [@](#): > > 1. The cost of displaying a sticky is not just the time to display it. To it must be added the chance that the sticky has bumped a thread that otherwise would have been on the first page. If stickies take up about 8% of a viewable page, as they do in “General Questions”, that means there’s up to an 8% chance they eventually cause an entirely new page to be displayed. For various reasons, I’d estimate it’s more like 4%, but that’s still a huge amount of overhead for practically no gain whatsoever. If it bumps a thread off the main page, big deal. The world won’t come to an end. It’s probably more important for the stickies to be there than for a thread whose usefulness eventually will diminish to be there. And as for “practically no gain whatsoever,” that’s debatable. There are two main locations for the FAQ - in a sticky or in the FAQ section of the site. The people who would need to view the FAQ are going to be the ones posting in threads; therefore the most efficient location of the sticky is on the threads. These stickies are also great for global announcements; if there were no stickies, the moderator or administrator would have to create a whole new thread for that announcement (as was done in the past, of course). Therefore these stickies are infinitely useful in getting information out to the people who need it in an expedient manner. Moving the stickies to the FAQ and directing people there is all well and good, but it would make it harder for people to find on their own. Put that information on a sticky, and they can’t miss it. ---
**Author:** ![partly\_warmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@partly\_warmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/partly_warmer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/76 "2002-07-28T20:56:01Z")
danthman, it seems to me that a sticky that’s read by 3400 out of 24,000 members (at very best) is very direct proof! Displaying a new index page _is_ a big deal, haven’t you ever waited for 60+ seconds for one to display? In computer terms, if it were true that the stickies were causing 4% overhead on the server, it would be quite significant. Particularly since they aren’t letting the Dopers pay for equipment upgrades. ---
**Author:** ![Linear\_Crack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Linear\_Crack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linear_Crack)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/77 "2002-07-28T21:16:20Z")
When I saw **Lynn’s** post titled “ **Pit rules** ” I was thinking to myself, "_Shit ya, It sure does. Best forum by far!!!_. But after opening the post and seeing actual RULES, I instantly had visions of the BBQ Pit becoming a sterile and lifeless place. I mean, come on! What’s going to happen when someone _does_ throw in the occaisional “lawn chair” or SCORE!! comment? Will this now be a bannable offense. Seems more problematic then helpful to me. I share the thoughts of the two posters below: > [@](#): > > \*posted by Airman \* > I like things the way they are. Obnoxious, heated, funny, and pointed. These parodies come and go, the whole “pulling up chair” thing comes and goes, so why make a big deal about and… > [@](#): > > _posted by astro_ > Also, why get irked if people are just enjoying a good verbal donnybrook and drop into a thread to say so? I can appreciate this adds to the noise to information ratio somewhat, but it (IMO) is also one of the most amusing parts of the Pit culture, and takes some of the hot air out of the bloated “life or death” seriousness that some people approach a Pit argument with. I’m all in favor of the ignore list and hate speech issue, but that is already a board-wide rule right? LC ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/78 "2002-07-28T21:37:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by partly\_warmer \* > \*\*danthman, it seems to me that a sticky that’s read by 3400 out of 24,000 members (at very best) is very direct proof! > > Displaying a new index page _is_ a big deal, haven’t you ever waited for 60+ seconds for one to display? > > In computer terms, if it were true that the stickies were causing 4% overhead on the server, it would be quite significant. Particularly since they aren’t letting the Dopers pay for equipment upgrades. \*\* Well, I’m betting that there’s a good portion of that 24,000 who never, ever visit the boards, who came once to register and never returned. So you’d have to take off that amount first, and I have no idea how many it would be. But let’s leave the numbers as they are. You say 3400 out of 24,000. How many views would the stickies get if they weren’t stickies? If they were just in the FAQ? 3400? Very unlikely. Most people would never visit it - this way, they’re at the forefront and can’t be ignored (and to add to that, people can’t claim not to know where they are, either). I think that the content of the stickies is far more important than many of the threads that are being posted, because the information in the stickies is relevant for months and years after the threads have come and gone. ---
**Author:** ![partly\_warmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@partly\_warmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/partly_warmer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/79 "2002-07-28T22:33:36Z")
dantheman, your point about active members is well-taken. But there are many other factors. Always be suspecious when a software feature is implemented without apparent concern for performance consequences. It usually means: nobody’s thinking about it. I doubt there’s any easy way to convince somebody who figures “the software engineers must have put that feature there for a reason” to realize a feature is, in fact, detremental to overall function. I only wanted to point out that stickies are unlikely to be cost-free. * * * I just took a look at the FAQ. They’re just the way I like information laid out: a dozen brief, artfully-chosen titles that immediately lead me to what I’m interested in. Compare with the stickies: intrusive, repetitive billboards with redudant information that I might view 1 in a 100 sessions. Consuming screen space and slowing the board. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051/80 "2002-07-28T22:57:25Z")
Well, here’s another thing - the stickies are great for new information. If one just updated the FAQ and then directed people to it, less people would see it than if the same info were pasted into a sticky. I like the FAQ, too. It just makes more sense to put pertinent information in the area with the highest traffic. On the other hand, there can come a time when there are too many of them. A reasonable suggestion might be to remove the stickies that have been there a particular time - move them to the FAQ. One could also edit the titles of the stickies to include the date they were posted, say “Meeting People Online, updated 7/29/2002.” Or even just “Sticky: Special Annoucement, updated 7/29/2002.” I think the stickies are great - and remember, they weren’t always there - but I do agree they could be managed with a little more discretion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-pit-rules/121051.md?page=5)