Because as @SenorBeef points out, it isn’t just ignoring, it is noise. Its spirit is the intent of blasting a radio loud enough that others can’t talk, maybe even the times when they do that to try to resolve hostage stand offs (which also probably rarely actually works).
Again ignoring the “ignoring” was by far the best response for those annoyed. Continue doing what you were doing not reading those posts, which in this case was no longer posting in the thread mostly. But as a declared acceptable tactic? Someone could with enough time on their hands just post a sentence every hour from Moby Dick? For all waking hours anyway?
I accept that it is a theoretical form issue: no one has that endurance without automating it and then the violation would be having an agent post for you … but still an error.
If someone wants to blast a radio loud enough so people will stop blasting them with a loud radio, what’s wrong with that?
Do you want the moderators to adjudicate which person blasting the radio is in the wrong? Because in the pit everyone is blasting the radio. Is it only the pittee who gets forced to turn the volume down?
Admittedly I don’t spend vast amounts of time there, but that is definitely not what I see there when I do. It wouldn’t be serving any of its possible useful functions if it was.
…what the person this thread is about was doing was so utterly mild compared to some of the things that happened in the pit. It’s where people go to yell at other people.
The pit allows people to let off steam. Again: I can’t see how you could enforce this WITHOUT the moderators being forced to adjudicate who is allowed to be loud and who isn’t.
Intensity is not the issue (albeit degree maybe) … yelling is not necessarily noise. Complaints you don’t want to hear, that you think are wrong, are not noise. The issue is categorical.
…again: what are the moderators supposed to do here? People should be forced to listen to complaints they don’t want to hear? Even if they are nonsense complaints? Who decides if the complaints are nonsense or valid?
One issue with expecting the pitee to act with the decorum expected by the pitters is that the pitee may not be skilled in the art of pitting. The pit regulars are quite adept at coming up with stinging insults. It’s like how comedians can come up with the most creative insults. But not everyone has that skill. Someone may not be able to defend themselves against hurtful comments that are being lobbed at them. For such a person, they may chose to fight back in a different way. If someone is coming at you with a knife but you’re not skilled at knife fighting, you might use a gun to protect yourself. The knife wielder might say it’s unfair that you brought a gun to a knife fight, but in a fight, people will protect themselves any way they can. The pit regulars don’t seem to think there’s any problem with insulting people, but not everyone feels that way. Not everyone will be able to let it roll off their back. For some people, the insults will cut deep and they may choose to respond in ways meant to stop the attacks. They’re not interested in trading barbs back and forth. Allowing personal attacks is typically not allowed in life. The fact that it’s allowed in the pit is because the rules against that are disabled in the pit. It seems like the pitee should have some rules disabled that allow them to fight back in a way they can. If they’re not comfortable blasting insults back, they should be allowed to fight back in a different way.
How about actually, ya know, fighting back by simply defending their actions with no clever comebacks needed?
(Which, IMHO, sticking your fingers in your eyes and blog posting is not. Beck’s “tactic” is nothing less than admitting they have no defense for their behaviour.)
Since we’re already in ATMB, I’m not sure if I should make a new thread for this, but for now I will just note that I disagree strongly with the characterization of my post as “having a go” at anyone. It was a continuation of a general post by @DSeid about the pit and how it works, and was intended as rebuttal to other posters’ claims that pit posts are damaging to the pittee. I would appreciate an explanation of that point, either here or in a separate thread if necessary. I also have to wonder if you would have posted such a Note to my post standing by itself, without the response.
I appreciate this is only a Note and not a disciplinary action, but the apparent assumptions behind the Note are stifling to my ability to discuss this issue on the board.
So? You considered it noise. Other people enjoyed it. As I pointed out in my post.
I have noticed this trend a lot. I make a counterargument to something I anticipate. Then people quote part of my post and then make an argument that I already rebutted. What is the purpose of this?
By my standards, what you just did was noise. It contributed nothing because I’d already rebutted it. But you still thought it had value.
Similarly, I didn’t care for Beck’s posts, but other people clearly enjoyed them and had conversations with her. People were entertained. So it wasn’t “noise” for everyone.
The thing that bothers me the most about all this is the entitlement. Neither you nor @DSeid have come up with a reason why the behavior in question is wrong. You come up with things that are irrelevant, like noise or that it’s designed to frustrate people, both of which are things that have always been allowed here.
You aren’t consistent in this if you only go after Beck. It shows this whole thing is motivated reasoning rather than some stalwart principle. And that’s why, to me, it is all just noise.
Right off the top of my head, I can name three: Bricker, Sam_Stone, and as alluded to above, Stranger_On_A_Train. That last one was a little unusual in that it was a Pit thread that he started that quickly turned into a reverse Pitting that he couldn’t handle. Still, those are all valid examples, just for starters. The first two were both subjects of their own Pit threads, Sam_Stone the subject of one of the most prolonged and vicious ones I’ve ever seen.