Ed, at some point you'll need to quell the rebellion.

The BBQ Pit
201

storyteller perhaps you should read what is written before you post? See the post right above yours maybe? I have clearly stated that while I can’t get on board getting all upset over this I am not defending the banning of a list of words and have linked to a Carlin routine by way of mocking that action. Again, that was a stupid way to approach the desire to have posters just not be real big jerks even in the Pit. But I am also mocking a specific tact of I Love Me which does indeed seem to take that “stupid position.”

The mischaracterizing of arguments that is being done is being done by you. So in the spirit of the thread - Regards.

202

Sorry for the doublepost, but my biggest objection to the new rule is this:

It is hard to find places to post in which “don’t be a jerk” is well respected. Jerks and snark tend to take over most discussions in most places. I think that having the Pit exist in its full form as a place to go in which snark and some level of jerkiness is the norm helped allow the rest of it exist relatively snark-free. Try to reduce the snark in the Pit too much and it will come out everywhere else. It is not “adult” to snark and bitch but it is human and giving us the place to do it freely when we want and avoid if we want has always been an effective tactic. If these rules were enforced too severely then that would indeed be A Bad Thing. OTOH, it seems that the rules are not intended to be enforced so severely, just try not to call each other by too many vulgarities too much or you might find yourself admonished or maybe even warned after multiple admonishments. Unless you are funny when you do so. I just think we should give them a chance to not fuck it up.

203

I would add, storyteller0910, that this is not about maturity as much as it is about establishing a minimum standard of behavior or conduct.

It is patently silly (an argument you’re hardly original in advancing) to say that immaturity can be found in all types of discourse so it is pointless to ask of the Pit denizens to adhere to some basic rules of behavior.

No one is/has suggested that immaturity needs to go away. David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel and many posters here display immaturity. Some of it is intentional as part of humor, or even flaming someone.

To suggest that a person is able to be dickish or display immaturity with 10 dollar words and therefore we should be able to shriek at each other with rank vugarities is an anemic argument.

And it’s quite immature, too. :wink:

204

BTW have there been a rash of bannings or warnings or even admonishments for bad words since the stupid rule was put in place? I mean I’m still reading plenty of festering piles of shit-cheese and the like with no wrath of the mod striking from the skies. Just make it a bit creative and funny and not overtly abusive for the sake of being abusively offensive and no other reason and there is no problem I think. I think that the powers that be will likely ignore their own stupid rule except in extremis. Should they strike it? Sure. But if they do not and it is ignored except for those things that would otherwise have been well covered by don’t be that big of a jerk even in the Pit, then what does it really matter?

205

Ya’ll just have to stop pumping up **raindog’s **resume for the recently vacated pit mod positions. If you think the Pit is going to be a train wreck now…

206

A. THey’re already stating that they’re revamping the new rules. It would be stupid to process bannings etc on posters for violating rules that admin is admitting is in the ‘we’re working on it stage’.

B. REmember, too, the thread in ATMB pertaining to the rule changes (I’m sorry, one of the many, the main one, the largest one) is running on, what, it’s 20th page? I would think it would be obvious that if posters got serious warnings/bannings based on the new rules simply as stated now w/o the revisions being talked about, would elicit an even larger firestorm.

Therefore, the lack of warnings/bannings etc due to the new rules should not be taken as evidence of any conclusion, except, ‘they’re working on it presently’.

Additionally, they are enforcing some stuff, for example changing thread title from “shut the fuck up” to “shut your pie hole” (which I find personally less appealing, but I recognize that there’s a significant rationale for omitting certain cuss words from thread titles).

207

You crazy? That’d be like appointing John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.!

208

It matters because the rule is so nebulous and ill-defined that even the guy who drafted it can’t pin down exactly what he meant, except to “clarify” that “dick” is unacceptable as an insult but “asshole” is OK because the latter is not sexual. So the mods ignore the rule as unworkable except when the poster is being “that big of a jerk”: unfortunately, even with the best will in the world standards of jerkhood are going to vary from mod to mod and poster to poster, which means that any implementation of the rule is going to be seen as arbitrary and capricious, with the standard seemingly set at “we can’t tell you what it is but we’ll know it when we see it”.

And that, boys and girls, is going to foster a whole lot more resentment and hostility than a few people calling each other “bodily part plus random noun” in the heat of debate. Despite attempts by raindog to depict this as the crusade of the potty-mouthed for the childish right to shout “cunt” instead of flexing our grown-up rhetorical muscles, the reason this rule change has aroused so much hostility is that it is unnecessary, ill-defined and open to caprice in its implementation. If a rule is so poorly drafted as to require ignoring most of the time, it should not be implemented.

The alternative, which Ed seems to be leaning towards at the moment, is to have an index of proscribed cuss words you can’t use in the Pit. That at least has the virtue of clarity, but in my view is so patronising as to not only neuter the Pit entirely but to treat posters as naughty children who need their mouths washed out with soap. It’s totally contrary to the irreverent and rough-and-tumble spirit in which the board - and the columns which inspired it in the first place - has been run for the last 10 years, and if you doubt me go and check the homepage right now:

Does a woman retain traces of her male partner after giving birth?

What’s the purpose of pubic hair?

Do female pigs have six minute orgasms?

What exactly is “ear-sex”?

Do women have wet dreams?

Does a pig have corkscrew shaped penis?

What are the pros and cons of becoming a eunuch?

Why aren’t porn actors charged with prostitution?

Can two women make a baby?

Can hermaphrodites get themselves pregnant?

I haven’t cherry-picked those examples, either: that is the homepage right now, pretty much, and if you detect a common theme in those articles you’re not the only one {I haven’t even mentioned the Slug Signorino illustrations, which Ed staunchly defended in a thread only a few weeks ago}, and yet Ed seemingly sees no contradiction in presiding over a bizarrely bipolar board in which the luridly titillating is official content {and long may it remain so}, yet posters are unable to say “dick” because it’s a dirty word.

That’s why I object to Rule Two.

209

Your point is well made although I’d actually prefer if it was just kept nebulous and ill-defined as in that it is okay to be a jerk in the Pit but not a huge one. Context does matter and mods should have discretion over what ultimately are subjective judgments. It is like defining porn and trying to exactly define it is a difficult thing indeed. And infantalizing.

As to your example, it reminds me of an old joke:

A man decides on whim to buy a camel to get around in New York and rides it home. His wife was not pleased.
“What kind of idiot buys a camel in New York?”
“You know the price of gas? And I can park him anywhere! Besides we can make money using him a stud animal!”
“What? What makes you think he’d be a good stud animal?”
“Well everywhere I went people commented: ‘Look at that schmuck on the camel!’”

Yeah, listing verboten words is a dumb idea even if I can’t see why to get so excited about it.

210

Porn’s easy to define: it’s what you jack off to but lose interest in the moment after you’ve wiped off the cum.

211

I completely agree with this.

212

You kidding?

John Bolton would look like Gandhi next to my reign of terror.

213

It’s probably bad form to quote oneself, but this post of mine got lost in the monster ATMB thread, and points out a key objection to Ed’s new rule: apart from anything else, it won’t bloody work, except to provoke dissent and derision. A good manager knows better than to make rules he can’t enforce.