Discussion of Pit rules

The BBQ Pit
81

I was once invited to join in and take my gloves off. :smiley: I knew Lynn before. I left my gloves on thankyouverymuch. See, even though Lynn wanted me to get wet, I also know her cousin Vinnie. Nuff said.

I would like to be able to do more than add ‘view’ stats to a thread but if I poke at both sides because I think they both are silly or uninformed or ain’t doing it my way, you know, the correct way to think, why then all the rest get on me for getting in the middle and if I start another thread about them, it is an unwarranted attack or parody and if I don’t do something I kick the cat and chop down the peach tree so it is a medical necessity that I poke into rants and fights and I got a Doctors Rx to prove it so there.

Rules ::: sheesh :::: Double edged swords and everybody forgets it. I used to love it when folks would come to me and tell me to enforce the rules, they usually are forgetting that there is more than one rule and some bite 16 different ways. I’d rather just see the heads roll from the mods axe. :smiley:

::: besides, I’m scared of Vinnie… ::::

82

I always come in from the “View New posts since last visit” door and I never see stickies like the loocked list of rules… Without this thread, I would have been banned out of ignorance ---- okay I know that is a free shot so do your best ------ and that is no fair… So we got to have them sticky things in that doorway also. – there goes the bandwidth again ----- :smiley:

83

I’d like to add another vote to the camp that feels that the lawnchair rule is a good one. It exasperates me to see someone write it, because when I’ve seen it, no confrontation has happened yet. It’s just someone saying “Whoo boy, THIS is going to get people riled up, and I can’t wait!” I worry that this is like a cheering section for people to come in and jump all over the issue at hand. Maybe the thread will be ignored. Or maybe people will be reasonable. Why pitch it to the lowest common denominator and pretend like that’s a reason to have a picnic?

Other than that comment, I just want to add that Lynn is damn sexy when she gets all authoritarian.

84

The lawnchair rule gets a very special round of warm applause from me.

And the ignore list thing really isn’t as complicated as it might first appear. Being the clever bunch that we like to think we are, I believe most of us know when we are being ignored, whether it is formalized with the use of the Ignore List feature or not.

85

Well, ya didn’t have to rub it in did ya? :smiley:

86

I’m all for banning parody. Parody and sarcasm are the tools of liberals like Jonathan Swift, George Orwell and others who can’t compose a decent argument without using humor, which as many theorists have pointed out, is just mocking the pain of others. Parody and satire and sarcasm must be excised from the board. You never see Cecil Adams using these things, and it’s his board.

As for lawnchairs, I can’t get worked up over that. When fools fight, other fools watch and bet on the outcome, occasionally tripping someone.

As for “ignore”, what is the big deal? A while back, Tranquilis put me on his ignore list, and he hasn’t made a single one of his usual non-sequitar responses to one of my posts. Kinda glad to be done with the dude. And while his post was a bit of a nah-nah, I can’t hear you, so what? It’s not like it really matters. Now if someone where to do that, and then get a few insults in and run, would that be a deal, not being able to answer? I think the cowardly aspect of it is clear.

I think the Pit is a wonderful place, and certainly the banning of parody and satire will bring orderliness and all that kinda stuff.

87

Yeah. You’ll never catch Mel Brooks doing parody.

88

I see parody is alive and well on the SDMB. :smiley:

Yeah. Those digital feet got 'lectronic clodhoppers on them! :smiley:

If someone I’m ignoring is acting childish, do I really care?

Uh, no. That’s why I’m ignoring him.

Again, satire, wonderful satire. :smiley:

Concerning the hate-speech rule: I agree that it is best left as an unwritten social more. This board is diverse enough that hate speech, no matter who it’s directed at, will be noticed and brought to others’ attention in the Pit, where the membership will vote through discussion over exactly how pissed they should be and whether or not anyone deserves to be banned. As the moderators and administrators do read those threads, they become part of the decisionmaking process. A Greek Chorus, if you will, the Collective Conscience of the SDMB.

89

In Lib’s posts, sure. Not here.

Libertarian’s parodies are great, as he does it correctly. He takes what someone’s actual stated beliefs are, and puts them in another, similar context, (and in the correct forum, I might add as opposed to say…GD ) so the offensive statements can be seen for what they are.

It doesn’t take much skill or wit to keep setting up a strawman, then make a parody of that. It’s about up there with 5 year olds making faces at each other and saying “This is YOU!”. Imagine a pro-lifer doing a ‘parody’ of pro-choice ‘beliefs’ where pro-choicers were being parodied for their ‘hatred of babies’. Or liberals having their “hatred of America” parodied. :rolleyes:

And finally, Lib knows when to let go as opposed to droning on and on and on and on and on with the same dull ‘routine’ in every post. (“Nyaah! This is YOU” over and over. :rolleyes: )

Frankly, I can think of another word that fits that behavior a whole lot better…

Fenris

90

Regarding the post a ‘link to parody’ rule. I can understand that there’s a segment of the SDMB population that wants to get the underlying joke, and hasn’t seen the original thread. However, posting the link with the parody is like explaining the joke ahead of time. It deflates all the tang out of reading an original post and making the absurdist connection with something you’ve read recently.

In the interests of compromise, I suggest a 24 hr rule. The next day after posting a parody, it must be revealed, thus preventing too many ‘whooshes,’ and not posing some sort of riddle to the whole community.

-Ace

91

Without commenting about any specific rules, I would like to offer up my approval for the very concept of having more, rather than fewer, rules. I have long felt - and posted, on occasion - that the “Don’t be a Jerk” rule was, by itself, woefully inadequate. This because its ambiguity left it very open to wildly divergent interpretations by posters and moderators alike. This codifying of actual rules is a step in the right direction, and I commend Lynn for having taken it.

92

No, it’s not like explaining the joke ahead of time at all. It’s certainly not a very effective parody or satire if people don’t know what’s being parodied or satirized.

A well-crafted parody of a more-serious thread should always link to the original thread, because it lends creedence to, rather than detracting from, the parody itself (which is supposed to be mocking something, after all).

93

Ace et al complaining about ‘but I’ll spoil the joke if I link the thread’ -

You’re all asuming that :

  1. Your parody skills are so amazingly adept that any/all readers of the thread will instantly know that it’s a parody and not your real, true feelings.

  2. that you, as a poster are also so well known that your views would be instantly recognizable and therefore your parody would be recognized as such.

Neither is generally true. There may be a couple of posters who are known for parodies (at least I know them as such), but to a new reader, they wouldn’t be. I almost got yanked into one 'cause I had no idea who the poster was or that the ideas espoused were a parody, and I was busy constructing a long involved rebuttal, when I checked the thread again and some of their friends had commented "way to go, " etc letting me know it was a parody.

now, had I finished and posted, I’d have been taking some one to task w/o cause, and frankly would have been wasting my time. and I’d resent the hell out of that.

So, for me, it isn’t so much of a ‘hey, let me in on the joke’, but to save all of us time who wouldn’t necessarily know that person was joking.

In a written medium, we only have your written words to view, can’t see your face, hear the inflection of your voice etc… In addition, it’s not a good idea to assume that the reader will have any idea of your posting history.

94

Being, once again, a recent culprit in the link-less parody debacle I should point out that the Pit moves far too fast for that to be practical. In the case of my failure I didn’t even have time to thwart what was quickly becoming an obvious mega swoosh before others had the time to make fools out of themselves in a way that was most undeserved and as wring put it, an irresponsible waste of their time.

I stand by my retraction. A link is most sensible and respectful towards the rest of the membership.

Sparc

95

Well, there’s two reasons for people not to get parodies, right?

They could be miss the obvious.

The parody could be written poorly.

IMHO a parody should progress from the plausible to the absurd so as to clue in even those unfamiliar with the source. If the parody doesn’t work for you, flame it! It’s readily apparent from the responses in a parody thread, whether more people are ‘whooshed,’ as in not getting it, or if there’s nothing in the parody to get.

Exposure to the original material should not be the defining factor. When I was a newbie, (as I still am, arguably), I saw frequent parodies where I didn’t know the original subject matter. I just said. “Oh, I don’t know why that’s funny.” But I knew it was supposed to be a parody nonetheless.

So the ‘parody link’ lets only those who would have missed the obvious from embarrassing themselves. Should they not be embarassed if the parody was obvious. How is this different than misinterpreting an argument in GD? You need to be able to recognize a good argument – and you need to be able to recognize a ridiculous argument. Is this not true in all the threads?

Additionally, the parody link is unsustainable. It assumes that the parodic target is a post, which is not necessarily the case. Recently, I posted a parody which targeted a half-dozen posts of a certain poster. Currently, I am now required to footnote and crossreference the material, which is readily available to cursory followers of the site – this puts us in the absurd position of requiring more footnotes for the PIT parodies than we do for the GD threads.

96

wring also left off number three and four.

  1. There are 2 million plus posts on the SDMB. Without a link, how is anyone supposed to know what’s being parodied.

  2. If the point of the parody, (as with Libertarian or Sparc’s) is to undermine the original argument by putting the poster’s words in a new light then the reader must see the original poster’s words. If the point of the parody is to fool people and 'git ‘em riled up’, then the ‘parodist’ is trolling.

Fenris

97

Lynn Bodoni said:

**
I could just kiss this woman.

98

As far as the “lawnchair” stuff, it doesn’t bother me, but if it is one of our Moderator’s hot buttons, fine. Same as with “ignore list” comments.

Both seem like over-reactions in the Pit. “F**k your grandma with a salad shooter” passes unremarked, but lawnchairs are over the line? Whatever.

I do have a problem with the “hate speech” part. Fenris remarks that racially or religiously based insults are traditionally considered “hate speech”, and constitute grounds for banning. Fair enough, but -

shouldn’t use of the term “fundie” fall under this heading?

It is clearly meant to be derogatory, and its use as a diminutive is roughly parallel to calling a black man “boy” - intentionally belittling and demeaning to the recipient. And it is clearly based on the insultee’s religious beliefs.

Strikes me, at least, as an inconsistency. Unless the moderators believe that certain groups, by reason of their beliefs, inherently violate the Sacred Law of the SDMB - Thou Shalt Not Act Like A Jerk.

Feel free to post in disagreement of this if you wish. Be advised that the two counter-arguments I will not consider valid are the good old “It’s our messageboard, and we can do what we like here”, and “Those darn fundamentalists don’t deserve any better because they are wrong”.

It is your messageboard, and you can do what you like here. And some of the opinions and beliefs of some fundamentalists are, IMO, wrong.

But if some groups are more equal than others, the SDMB will not be the same messageboard we all know and love.

And that applies to fundies, godless atheists, commie subversives, right-wing crypto-fascists, tree-hugging twits, bleeding-heart liberals, Rush Limbaugh fans, and Irish.

As well as us on the lunatic fringe.

Regards,
Shodan

99

Kind of tough to flame a parody if you don’t know it’s a parody. And even if there are several people posting “Ha, ha, I get it” messages - what is it they’re getting? Who knows - the OP has decided to make it a big secret.

And how did you know this, exactly? Because you saw other people behaving as if it were a parody? What if their posts were part of the parody? Then you’d feel really silly.

The comparison with a GD thread is not apt. If someone misinterprets an argument in GD, it’s usually because of miscommunication, since (as has been pointed out) this is a highly visual medium, and meaning can be missed. But if someone posts a parody thread and whooshes those who have no idea what that person’s talking about, the problem is one of misleading, not miscommunication. The OP is deliberately misleading people.

If you are parodying the posting style of a particular person, you need only link to one thread or one post. I don’t think anyone wants to see 400 links to 400 posts.

100

I don’t know if anyone’s seen Salon’s parodies, but they have a tiny text flag that notifies the attentive, but of course, the inattentive miss that too! Here’s a couple that had me going, at first…

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/06/11/action_star/

http://www.salon.com/people/satire/2002/04/25/bush_satire/

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/05/24/kennyboy/index.html