I agree that that is one of the purposes of the Pit, however, another and very important function of the Pit is to allow posters to vent their frustations against other posters without derrailing the debates in other forums.
As (the only) one who’s been actually suspended for it, and for far less egregious infractions, I share your confusion. I’m fairly certain at this point that the only “rule” I broke was the one about not pissing Lynn off.
A rule everybody should learn early. This place, like Life, is Animal Farm writ large.
The “Esq” implies that he/she is a lawyer, and presumably also that her/his postings here are part of his/her legal practice. Perhaps she/he wants to be hired by Creative Loafing as a lawyer. As TubaDiva says inthis thread:
so perhaps DSYoung is hoping to get a bit of work in fighting all those threatened legal actions.
I think that’s another way of saying much the same thing, and it’s part of a more general principle that threads should not be hijacked by irrelevant stuff. But it’s all part of one board, and things filter back. I think it’s fine to say that a poster has engaged in jerkish behaviour – because you are attacking the behaviour – but I think saying a person is a jerk steps over the line. However, it may be just me seeing this line 
He is not a practicing lawyer. He has made it plain over the years that he is a teacher of some sort. Also I took the time to answer you in Frodo’s thread, do you care to reply?
God almighty, I know. How’s it possible for his head to be inserted so far into the administration’s rectum?
If calling someone a jerk is intended as a roundabout way to get him banned I agree with you, if, however “Jerk” is used in the sense of “Asshole” i think it’s ok. (since we can, or should can, call each other “asshole”)
You miss my point entirely. I put “rule” in quotes, 'cause it ain’t. Any moderator who can’t set aside his or her personal dislike for a poster and act fairly and equitably has no business being a mod.
Sorry – I’ve been responding to Frodo’s posts, and have directly answered this one. I’ll just repeat that I think calling someone a jerk is over the line, especially since that basic rule here is “Don’t be a jerk.” Accusing someone of jerkish behaviour is (IMHO) different, because you are attacking the behaviour.
I guess the bigger problem is that, in responding (both directly and indirectly) to Ed Zotti’s new regime in this way we are confirming Ed’s prejudices about a certain class of SDMB member, and I don’t like posters that I like and admire proving Ed right in this way.
But carry on, and ignore me if you wish.
Totally agree with this pitting. I always imagine Lynn as Jabba the Hut and DSYoungesq as the little laughing sycophant guy on a leash.
I can’t say I agree, but I see your point. If I and others convinced the mods and admins that **DSYoungEsq **is a jerk, they would need to warn and possible suspend him. However, I specifically said he was “acting like a jerk” which is has a subtle difference. I did not call for him to get a warning or other action, nor do I think it would be warranted. I do hope he takes the criticism to heart and maybe backs off the condescending tones. You’ll also note that I immediately qualified the “acting like a jerk” with the “little old lady” comparison.
Obviously I don’t wish to ignore you, I was trying to understand your point.
Do you not see that DSYoungEsq has been posting in a way where it is easy to perceive him as being condescending or worse?
I merged the threads titled “DSYoungEsq, you supercillious toad” and “Extremely roundabout attempt to pit under the new rules” at the joint request of both OPs. I left the DSYoungEsq title, even though the first post is from the other thread because that thread title is more descriptive.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Thank you for merging these.
Is it safe to say that the lack of notes or warnings indicated that both these pittings of another member are fine under the new rules?
Wait, I’m confused. Are we talking about Cato the Elder or Cato the Younger here? And what exactly did he do in terms of fixing morality by fiat that’s pissing you off so much?
Cato the Elder IIRC-
Attempting to ban “luxury” in women’s dresses and jewelry.
Of course that doesnt piss me of as much as his treatment of Scipio Africanus, but DSYoungEsq posture reminds me of it.
Let me add Raindog to my post as well.
I love how both Raindog and DSYoungEsq blither on about how, once the horrible, horrible Pit is cleaned up and all the riff-raff leave, the Board will be filled with “more creative, more vibrant, more intelligent” posts.
But strangely, looking at their non-rules related contribution for the last month or so, I see nothing from either of them that would be “more creative, more vibrant, more intelligent”. Just standard chat (and in Young’s case, a case of Junior-Mod Brown-Nose so intense that every time an admin comes to a sudden stop, Young ends up with a nose-bleed). And there’s nothing wrong with standard chat–it’s primarily what I do here any more–but from these two champions of POSTING EXCELLENCE, it’s surprising that their posts are so mundane.
Well, he didn’t attempt to ban it…it was already banned in the lex Oppia. He just opposed its repeal. Let me also say, this is a long time to be bitter about that.
Well, what can i say, I still hold a grudge against the city of Athens about the whole Socrates thing…