Drowning out others is okay in the Pit, but I wish it weren't

About This Message Board
1

I refer to this post by @Miller . For those who don’t dip into the Pit, @Beckdawrek has (rather cleverly in my opinion, although I think her continuation of the schtick after we all got the joke is inappropriate) decided to overwhelm a Pit thread about her with blog-style commentary.

Following several post reports, Miller has deemed Beck’s posting strategy acceptable. You should read his post rather than go by my summary, but I believe his argument distills to, “well, what do you expect? She’s being criticized, she’s fighting back. Good for her.”

I get that it’s okay to piss people off in the Pit; that’s kind of the whole point, and as long as one has a sufficiently relaxed attitude toward pit discussion, it’s pretty fun.

I was amused by Beck’s behavior, at first. But even the Pit has standards, albeit low ones, does it not? Between post 920 and 1115, Beck has made 53 posts, including posting 2 or 3 times consecutively five times, and nearly consecutively (an occasional poster got in a word in between sometimes) on many more occasions. I thought consecutive posting was frowned upon.

It seems clear that Beck’s point is not to engage in discussion (her posts are usually pure bloggery unrelated to the conversational flow), but rather to drown out competing voices. If that is allowed, then so be it.

However, to defend what Beck is doing because hijacks and being annoying are allowed in the Pit misses the point. What Beck is up to is drowning out people you disagree with by posting any old unrelated blah blah blah repeatedly and then some more and then again and then lots more. That may count as hijacking/being annoying, but it’s also something more.

With all due respect to Beck - to whom I apologize if she finds this thread irritating, I don’t blame her for trying - the joke gets stale after a while. I wish it were worthy of a gentle note, rather than the mod encouragement it’s getting.

2

I avoid going into pit threads so I just briefly checked this one out. From what I can tell she is just doing good old boy type senate filibustering. Just not conceding the floor because the rules allow it.

I stay out of there as much as possible, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. So I will step out of this thread now since I’ve spoke my piece.

3

Excellent description. Why didn’t I think of that word?

And is seems that filibustering, including consecutive posting, is okey-dokey on the Straight Dope. Well, when I rule the universe, I’ll change that!

4

It’s not getting “mod encouragement”. In my view, it’s getting a very well-considered neutral judgment from @Miller. Exactly the right call.

You’ve made a very lengthy OP here and are apparently all worked up about something, but I’m not clear on what you’re all worked up about. Can you not just ignore the thread, or put it on mute if it bothers you so much? How is this minor kerfuffle harming you?

5

That is what most of us do most of the time. But if no one complains then behavior here will deteriorate.

Why exactly didn’t you do the same in this thread?

6

To clarify, it’s not okay anywhere except in the pit.

7

I don’t see any deterioration resulting from what the OP is complaining about. I see it as a balanced interpretation of existing rules.

Because the OP has chosen to be a vocal activist for their cause, in a forum specifically intended to question moderator judgments and to push for changes that in my view are absolutely not needed and would be detrimental to the culture of the SDMB.

8

Yes, the only “damage” done is that now there is no thread available for pitting that poster, and if someone were to start a new such thread, that poster would probably repeat the game until everyone else gets tired of it. That poster has, if nothing else, perseverance and energy to pursue what she wants (what that is may engender a separate argument among other posters).

Imagine what would happen if all pittees took similar steps? The end of the pit world as we know it.

9

It isn’t harming me in the least! On the contrary, I find these “kerfuffles,” and the different points of view, to be a pleasantly trivial diversion.

If I weren’t interested in what others think, I wouldn’t have started this thread. I made it clear, or at least I thought I did, that I accept that the style of moderation being applied is what it is. I disagree, yes. But my panties aren’t in a twist.

10

This ruling appears to be saying that any pit thread can be shut down by a poster with enough time and patience (or an AI agent, I guess) to flood the signal with noise. If that’s the case we may as well close the forum altogether, right? What is the use of a forum on any website where that’s acceptable behavior?

11

Alas, Miller said that if we had comments, they should go in ATMB. My personal preference would have been to post in the Pit thread.

12

The purpose of the Pit is “For rants about the world or beefs with another poster.” Her posts don’t prevent anyone from doing that. Anyone is free to post their rants or beefs about her in that thread. It’s true her posts make it harder for the pitters to follow each other’s rants, but all they have to do is ignore her and her posts will go away so they can just focus on each other’s rants.

13

These objections* to Beck’s posting in that Pit thread don’t fully acknowledge that she’s doing it in a thread with her name in it. Specifically, in a thread intended “for people to insult her,” as Miller put it.

Surely the Pit rules, less-stringent as they are, can include something like 'in a thread with your name it which is intended to insult you, you can do guerilla tactics such as posting frequently, posting recipes, etc.’

It would make sense to disallow these tactics in OTHER Pit threads.

But in a thread in which people are posting specifically to criticize you or be mean or to rile you up (or whatever), surely it’s okay to reply in the way that Beck has done.

.
*with the exception of @filmore. That take seems reasonable: “Anyone is free to post their rants or beefs about her in that thread. It’s true her posts make it harder for the pitters to follow each other’s rants, but all they have to do is ignore her and her posts will go away so they can just focus on each other’s rants.”

14

I don’t moderate the Pit, but we all know it’s a special place with relaxed rules. I feel it’s primary purpose is to serve as a safety valve - get those complaints OUT of otherwise productive threads, and do some healthy venting.

I also think that they’re useful for documenting when a poster has a long term pattern of specific harmful behaviors. It can be a help.

But I personally wouldn’t want posters to not be able to defend themselves, or even back-smack their critics, even if it’s a “neener-neener” level of “I’m not touching you.”

Would I do it? No. But I think it’s a fair tactic.

Now, I am NOT @miller, but I will point out that he laid out his feelings about how the Pit should be managed a while back when we had other accusations of Trolling in the Pit.

I don’t want to quote snippets and leave out context, but Miller does a great job of pointing out the difference between posting to piss-off people in the pit while otherwise participating, and solely posting in the pit to piss people off. And I agree with his POV for what it’s worth.

15

Wait, posting solely to piss people off is not allowed in the Pit? I thoughts lots of posts are made with that very intent, nothing else?

Of do you mean, it’s okay to make individual posts that are exclusively intended to piss people off, as long as you also make other posts in the thread that contribute to the discussion.

16

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear, which is why I linked to the post in question.

The short, short version for those who don’t want to read the thread (It’s a single post though) is that yes, our usual definitions of posting to get an emotional response as trolling is kind of the bread and butter of the Pit.

Coming to board, even if you restrict all your posting to the Pit, in order to piss off people is where the “trolling in the pit” becomes the issue.

Miller put it much better, but yes, closer to what you’re talking about in your revised post @CairoCarol. Really, read the link - Miller put a LOT of thought into it, and I think it’s a good take on the distinction.

17

Incorrect. That thread is still right there, and has been for a very long time, and it won’t be closed or deleted. In a sense, it’s an Everlasting Vehicle for Insults and Hurt Feelings. No poster should have to put up with that.

If you wanna propose a rule change, how about close pitting of posters threads after the initial topic has run its course and let it die a dignified death?

18

If her posting style annoys you, isn’t it better if it’s mostly constrained to one thread? Win-win. I can’t see any reasonable way for a rule against it without it being a massive pain in the ass to the Moderators anyway.

19

What is the pittee has not modified their behavior that led to the creation of the initial thread? Open a new thread every few months?

We have some long-standing pit threads directed at posters and most are bumped for good reason.

20

Pit-ees should absolutely be able to defend themselves, and those are often fun threads. But Beck isn’t defending herself, she’s just trying to drown out the discussion others are having. I don’t remember seeing this from other Pit-ees before. Most ignore the thread, or argue their case, or lean into what was pissing people off – but in all cases, they are engaging with other posters.

One of the things I love about the Dope is that there’s always a place for people to have the conversation they want to have. And people who don’t want to have that particular conversation stay out of those threads. If Beck doesn’t want to see people complaining about her, she can mute the thread. If she wants to argue against people, she could do that too. But her goal is to not have other people talk poorly of her, to make sure they don’t have a place where they can discuss what they want to. While I absolutely understand the desire, it’s generally better to ignore such people (or threads in this case) rather than try to control what they say.

Obviously, anyone can continue to post complaints about her in that thread if they want. But don’t try to pretend the ability to discuss it hasn’t been restricted. The heckler’s veto is real.

All that said, I don’t think it should be disallowed. The Pit is what it is. But it does affect my opinion of people who do it.

(And that recipe thing? Funny maybe the first one or two times, and stupid as hell after that. Don’t use that as an example of why this is so clever.)