I already see this modded so it’s unnecessary. If you want such a thing to apply everywhere every time, see again the policy of no bright line rules on the board.
I think an important piece that is missing to this discussion is that the thread wasn’t bumped for any real reason, and there was no new complaint regarding recent behavior. chela bumped it (seemingly by accident?) and there was a bit of a pile-on over an issue that had already been litigated in the thread.
So she was filibustering outdated, nothing-new complaints. It stopped the circle-jerk of “omg this poster bothers me so much that I need to bitch again about something she posted 6 months ago.”
This is an excellent point. There wasn’t a new or recent issue to discuss. It was a useless bump. In this specific case there was no one to drown out.
I’m still seeing a difference between “posting in a way that annoys others, in any Pit thread” and “posting in a way that annoys others in the thread specifically pitting YOU.”
To me it seems reasonable to treat these differing situations differently. (Specifically, so long as the general rules for the Dope are not violated, the Pittee should be able to post blogs/recipes/random stuff in the thread he or she is being Pitted in, in my opinion.)
If this ATMB thread is discussing a prospective rule to be spelled out, we should realize that it’s a prospective rule that would apply only to a small minority of Pit threads. (As someone noted, most Pit threads are about the world in general, not about specific Dopers.)
Very well-observed. The outrage seems to be about expectations of some sort of submissive display from the Pitted person. Those expectations are likely not fully rational or justified.
A few people here have defended the idea that what Beck posted is acceptable, but I haven’t seen anyone doing so on the basis that “nothing” should be “off-limits in the Pit.”
It’s a question of a relatively infrequent situation: a person who is Pitted chooses NOT to either ignore the thread, or post a reply in an apologetic, deferential fashion. Instead, they choose…something else.
Whatever the ‘something else’ is, allowing it for those pitted is NOT the same thing as allowing it everywhere. (And that distinction could be codified in the Rules if that’s thought desirable.)
Hardly catastrophic.
Exactly what happened.
Right.
This is correct, IMHO. Beck is defending herself in her own Pit thread in a rather creative way, and @Miller has (properly, in my view) acknowledged her right to do so, but only because it’s a thread dedicated to Pitting her.
Yes, though I’d put it less charitably. A Pitting is somewhat analogous to the pillories of Medieval Europe, where the offender would be locked in a wooden frame and all the townsfolk would come by to point and laugh. Pittings are often deserved, sometimes not, but often get out of hand when pile-ons get thick and heavy. They have a tendency to bring out the latent asshole that lurks deep inside all of us.
It would certainly be catastrophic if everyone started making their own little blog posts about their grandkids in every thread they participated in no matter how unrelated, every thread would instantly become 95% personal blog. That’s my point and how the universalization principle works – if it happens at a low enough level we just absorb the costs, but if everyone does it, everything breaks.
The mods have been clear here- that is ONLY permitted in the Pit, and the consensus here among posters is that it is only okay from the poster being Pitted.
So, no every thread would NOT become 95% personal blog. Only Pit threads, at most.
Fair enough, but even just in the pit, if everyone who was pitted came in and did their own little filibuster, and at some point does it become a problem if they make a bot to just post recipes or something totally unrelated, would it become a problem at some point? At a certain level of posting frequency and unrelatedness of the content it doesn’t even really matter if it’s manual or automated, you can’t tell the difference.
Slippery Slope.
But of the top 50 threads in the Pit, only three are “I pit XXX”. So really pitting of an individual poster is not a important part of the Pit.
…
…
Forgive me for asking, but are people allowed to use bots to post to the SDMB? My understanding was no.
I don’t think present rules should be based on hypothetical future possibilities. Those can be dealt with if and when they happen. For example, it would be reasonable to have a new rule that anyone spamming the board with bots, whether in their own Pit thread or anywhere else, should be immediately banned. In fact, I’m not sure we even need an explicit rule for that.
I’m sure they aren’t, but if someone responds to their own pit thread by prolifically posting unrelated content to drown out everyone criticizing them, how would you know whether they post it themselves? Does it reach a point where it doesn’t matter if they’re spending 6 hours a day posting nonsense or they’re just having a bot do it for them?
So let’s take a bot out of the picture and just assume the person manually posts 500 cake recipes per day to their pit thread to drown out the criticism and make the thread unusable. When does it become a problem?
My point is, I think, that we’re making the wrong calculation here by implicitly reasoning “well, it’s just one person wasting some people’s time, it’s not that big a deal” by showing that rules should pass a universalization test. The behavior doesn’t become correct or acceptable because it’s small enough scale that we can tolerate it.
There is a separate “is it worth enforcing if the problem is small enough” which is a valid practical question, but I don’t think this hypothetical behavior is justified even if we decide it’s not worth special rules or attention.
We do NOT need a new rule just to cover one posters actions in one thread, especially as the Mods have stated such actions are Okay.
I vehemently disagree. At risk of drifting into philosophy here, scale is a fundamental attribute of any organized system. Scale makes all the difference in the world.
There’s a fundamental difference between someone posting blog-ish anecdotes once or twice a day, and someone, say, spamming the thread with a bot several times a second (which isn’t actually possible since the Discourse software itself would block it). So your concern over a hypothetical isn’t really relevant here.
I guess my question would be – why is it acceptable for someone to post unrelated content, that they know is not pertinent to the thread, with the specific purpose of adding noise to the signal, to make the thread less readable for other people, because they want to discourage people to participate in a thread where they’re the target of the pitting? Again, I’m not reading the 1100 post thread, I’m just going by how other people have characterized it. I don’t understand why people think that’s okay regardless of the magnitude.
Or if it’s fine, then why is it only fine in the pit? Why can’t a person losing an argument in GD drown out (or just add noise) the rest of the thread by posting cake recipes, but they can do that in the pit?
It’s probably related to why people can denigrate other posters with hateful and and profane rants in the pit but they can’t in the other areas of the board.
To me that seems utterly wacky.
Vandalism of the commonweal is fine as long as your vandalistic goal is aimed at people who disagree w you? Really?
Make a rational defense and be judged on your merits, apologize for your mistakes and move on, or STFU. That’s how the personal pitting game ought be played.
Some of us are talking past each other because of semantics – when I say “defending” I mean arguing against the accusations or the accusers. You are using “defending” as protecting her or others from hearing those accusations by discouraging people from posting them in the first place. They are both valid definitions, but she is only doing the latter, not the former, so saying “she has the right to defend herself” (a non-controversial statement on the surface) isn’t productive. It doesn’t get anyone closer to the actual discussion – what kind of defense do we want to encourage?
Yes, this is the heart of the matter for me. It seems one of our key tenets here is that good SMDB citizens engage with other posters or engage with the topic of a thread. If you don’t want to do either, stay out of the thread and mute it if you must, but let others have the discussion they want to have. Posting a bunch of noise in an attempt to make the thread unreadable because you don’t want others to have a conversation is shitty.
ZACTLY! Allcaps on purpose.
It’s a jerk move and merits censure wherever deployed.