# Ed, please read this digest of reactions to New Pit Rule #2 that you've been ignoring **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 27, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722 "2009-02-27T22:20:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/1 "2009-02-27T22:20:12Z")
(Apologies for extreme length.) Dear Ed, **Dead Badger** said this elsewhere, and I think it’s true: > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/930): > > … when the admins do stop by, it’s easier to get them to pay attention to the sensible posts if there isn’t a whole lot of low hanging fruit for them to respond to. Having read all now-19 pages of the [Pit rules have been revised](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508033) thread, especially this part: > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/499): > > … What I’m hearing so far are comments along these lines: > > 1. This rule is too vague, unenforceable, etc. It doesn’t seem all that vague or unenforceable to me, but if there’s clearer way to state it that accomplishes the same result, I’m open to suggestions. > > 2. This rule will kill the Pit. Nonsense. We’ve already had people posting long lists of Pit threads that were unobjectionable. Precisely my point. The kind of behavior I’m trying to eliminate isn’t common; I just don’t like it when it happens. Fears that some massive clampdown looms are overblown. Most people will notice no change. > > 3. I want to be able to call other users cunts when I feel like it. Well, my friend, I’m sorry. You’re out of luck. … … I’ve compiled a Reader’s Digest for you of things said there, things you haven’t responded to or acknowledged, that I think are worth your attention. As Robin Goodfellow said: > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/699): > > … **Ed Zotti** , your comments in this thread debasing, falsely portraying, and ignoring the real concerns of real, adult posters is insulting to the intelligence of the many, many posters who are genuinely concerned about your judgment and about the future of the forum they love. … These arguments are along _these_ three lines, and I very much hope you will hear them this time:[ol] [li]Rule #2 will not _kill_ the Pit, but it will hurt it. Some of the “abuse” (at least as you seem to be defining it on the fly) is necessary and a force for good. Yes, there are few existing Pit rants that would be off-limits now, but some of those are priceless.[/li]. [li]We think the Pit wasn’t broken and didn’t need to be fixed. We need to see examples of the problem threads that motivated you, and an explanation of why modding with the “Don’t be a jerk” rule wouldn’t have been enough.[/li]. [li]Even if Rule #2 turns out to be absolutely necessary and hurts not a thing, please be aware of what you’re losing because of the \*way \*you’re enacting it.[/li][/ol] **Arguments for “abuse” in the Pit** > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/478): > > … The whole point of the Pit is that it’s an outlet for extreme interactions. A librarian slapping my hand is not an extreme interaction and obviously, obviously, there’s no call for invective. > > But if some walnut-brained yahoo comes up to my desk at work and tries to browbeat me into voting for Lyndon LaRouche, or if a stranger approaches me at a party and begins arguing that the Nazis were misunderstood and the ovens were just ordinary showers and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a factual exposé, you’re goddamn right I’m gonna call the cunt a cunt and tell him to fuck the fuck off. > > The rule change solves a problem that doesn’t exist. We aren’t leaping at one another’s throats over nothing. The moon-hoax thing mentioned earlier in the thread was a straw man, because it doesn’t actually go the way it was represented. It actually goes like this: > > Hoax Arguer: The moon landings were faked because (blah blah blah). > First SDMBer: No, because (counterblah). > Second SDMBer: (Tangential mockery of the idea, not the arguer.) > Hoax Arguer: I disagree, because (repeat of blah blah blah). > Third SDMBer: Rolleyes. > First SDMBer: Presuming you’re serious, (more counterblah). > Hoax Arguer: Listen, can’t you see that (repeat of blah blah blah). > Fourth SDMBer: Okay, look. (Long, detailed recapitulation of past debates.) > Hoax Arguer: I don’t buy it, because (repeat of blah blah blah). > > First SDMBer, in the Pit: Hoax Arguer is a stupid motherfucker. > > That, according to the new rule, would be abusive. But: I’d assert that it’s not abusive, because in situations like this, it is a simple statement of objective fact—“hoax arguer” is a stupid motherfucker. Now, though, arbitrarily, we are not allowed to observe the stupid-motherfuckerness of the stupid motherfuckers, because it’s not “civil.” No, instead, we need to exercise our thesaurian muscles, and create some other way of expressing the same sentiment, in hopes that more creative epithets will generate amusement in the curtained cabal, and preclude chastisement for the uncivility. > > But why? Why go to these lengths? The standard Hoax Arguer, or any other classical dumb-argument dead-horse-flogger—Stormfronters, anti-vaxxers, Obama-not-a-citizen bozos, ad nauseum: any of the quickly-recognizable agenda-driven numbskulls who park their rhetorically-leaky muscle cars in our flowerbeds on a weekly basis—is, simply and obviously, a stupid goddamn motherfucker. It adds nothing to the board’s culture to disallow a flat statement of that inarguable fact, and, I would argue, harms the board’s culture and its ostensible purpose, inherited from Signior Adams, of mocking the stupid back into its cave. … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/492): > > … One of the things attracted me to the SDMB way back when was the fine line between civility and anarchy straddled by the Pit—it allowed for rough-and-tumble arguments and invective without the harsh tone and infantile scratchings you get in a completely unmoderated forum. The “free-for-all” weekend gave me a new appreciation for that line; I know some posters preferred it that way, but I thought it reduced the signal-to-noise ratio significantly. > > The trick to maintaining that line, IMO, is that it has mostly been allowed to find itself, based on what the community wants. If modding gets too harsh, too lax, or too capricious, the community speaks up, and balance is restored. This is only possible when you have good moderators and loose rules. Now you’re tightening up the rules, and in the process you’ve run off some very good moderators. Should we be surprised that this will result in something other than what the community wants? > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/519): > > … it is a major selling point, and one that distinguishes this board from others. There is a lot of tension on this board, and you’ve just neutered the major release valve that keeps it from boiling over. If you think this is going to make it easier to sell this place to advertisers, great. But it’s pissing off your existing users, and you don’t seem to care. > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/550): > > [QUOTE=Ed Zotti] > Fine, so we’ve established that after all this huffing and puffing, the rule basically isn’t going to affect you to speak of, and you’ll deal with it, however fucking retarded you may think it is. Works for me. With all due respect, you’re missing the point, Ed. … My own posts very rarely contain profanity (although they certainly do from time to time), and I’m pretty sure I’ve never started a Pit thread attacking another poster … But I want to respond to the above, because I think you’re mis-stating the source of objection to this new policy, or rather, oversimplifying it. It’s easy enough to dismiss complaints as people who want only “the ability to call other users cunts.” But for my part, it is not the ability to call anyone anything in particular that drew me to the SDMB; it was the sense that here was an online community where intelligence—and quality of expression—were valued. I think this policy is a reversal of this, a blow on behalf of ignorance. The idea that “fuck you” is somehow automatically stupid and uncreative and a string of words you pulled from Roget’s is indicative of greater intelligence and creativity is just flat wrong; it’s intellectual pretentiousness at its worst. I personally value choosing exactly the right words to convey exactly the meaning I want, and in some cases, “go fuck yourself” is precisely right and a string of donkey-penis references is simply not. I want the ability to choose the right words (or to make the attempt, anyway), because the precision of language is my particular interest. **Cervaise** has rightly received acclaim for some of his longer, more elaborately worded insults, but I have seen him offer much shorter, blunter, and more profane insults, as well. That he is able to use them correctly and in their proper places is an indication, to me, that he is intelligent—certainly more so than someone who expends huge amounts of effort trying to find a $50 equivalent to “asshole” when “asshole” is exactly the right word, because he’s convinced himself that “asshole” is inherently smarter. Specific words, specific constructions, are never stupid or unimaginative on their own. The failure to recognize this suggests that the commitment to intelligence that this board purports to have is really a commitment to the appearance of intelligence—to the ability to say, "look, our discourse is elevated because we don’t say ‘fuck you’—and the ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism of that stance is disappointing to me as a user. [/QUOTE] > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/738): > > … the Telemarketer Thread is one of the best examples of our environment and culture with respect to the Pit. > > **Cervaise** called another poster a cunt, one of many apposite and necessary insults hurled at the dimwitted parasite in that masterpiece of rage. Using that one biting rhetorical tool in tandem with other similar words of scorn, derision, and invective, he crafted himself the single most memorable rant on the Dope, and also one of the best rants I’ve ever read on the internet at large. It was insulting. It was abusive. It was beautiful. … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/817): > > … That’s kind of why I liked the Pit actually—I didn’t really fall under the new rules as a poster in there, but I loved to read it for those little turns of phrases and insults that would backfire onto the poster. It was intelligent and it was quite witty—anyone can say FU, it takes a better man to take someone else’s FU and turn it against themselves. That’s why I liked the old Pit, not for all the \*unting \*unts supposedly spewed forth by everyone. Sure juvenile humor may be just that, but the Pit was filled with plenty of people who weren’t just that, and were able to take something as silly as juvenile humor and turn a phrase so well that it became something more. Plus, I do admit one of my favorite lines of all time that I love to see in the Pit is **Cervaise** ’s “Fuck You, You Fucking Troll”. It’s simple, sophomoric perhaps, but it works so well sometimes. Because it’s not like he’s going around calling everyone that. When it’s called out, you know you’ve just seem someone get dissected with a crude giant Bowie knife but in the hands of **Cervaise** , he wields it like a scalpel. And it’s truly a joy to see a master at work then. That’s half of the reason I dislike the new rules, because it DOES diminish the entertaining quality that the Pit had.… > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/889): > > … here’s why I like people to have the full range of emotion in the Pit. It’s so that posters who are admittedly lazy in their arguments can be mocked to the full extent so that they either increase the level of their discourse or they get out. For me, that dynamic serves as a self-policing which increases the level of play in the Pit, not decreases it. **Cite? or: Please show us what you think was broken** > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/763): > > … **Ed** , I’m a paying customer—how will this policy change improve my experience with the SDMB? If it will not improve my experience with the SDMB, which customers’ experience will it improve? If it would help, please assume that I am fucking retarded and provide some examples. > > And a couple related questions: > > [ul] > [li]What metrics did you use to determine that the rule changes were necessary?[/li] > [li]What metrics will you use to determine whether the rule changes are beneficial? (If your boss says “Prove to me that the change was for the better”, how will you do so?) …[/li][/ul] > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/854): > > There have been a lot of references to supposedly awful exchanges that have taken place, but I’ve yet to see a concrete example. I think it would be helpful for people to understand the need for a new rule if someone could dig up a few links that highlight the behavior some feel is unacceptable. > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/492): > > As someone else suggested, I’d love to know more about what threads prompted all of this. I may not keep up with every single Pit thread, but this really seemed to come out of nowhere. If the outbreaks you describe happen “fairly rarely”, it seems like they would be easier to deal with piecemeal than to make a new, blanket, wildly unpopular rule. … we don’t really even know what the impetus was behind it. > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/733): > > I think you had room to do what you say you want to do under the old rules. In the rare cases where things became just abuse rather than heated disagreement, people could be told to knock it off. Those who failed to take the hint could go. The new rule is opaque at best, incoherent um, already. … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/519): > > … An obvious question comes to mind, if most people won’t notice the difference then why change the rules in the first place? > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/552): > > …This is not the first time you have asserted that you are trying to regulate something that was not really a large problem anyway. > > If you had said “From now on, “goose tatooing” is forbidden. There will be NO references to, instructions on, or links to other websites involving the subject of goose tatooing.” Most posters would be asking “WTF? When was this a problem?”. … > > I don’t think that it is unnatural for people to try to understand the reasoning behind what may be a “new” rule (or at least a return to enforcement of a previously unenforced standard). This understanding may make it easier (on a practical level, not an emotional one) to comply more fully with your wishes. > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/570): > > … This is not a twelve-page thread of people who are angry because they want to call each other names. This is a twelve-page thread of people who are angry because you have removed the assumption that we are adults and will act as such (with occasional intervention from the mods). The new rules make several insulting presumptions **based on no evidence**. Show me **where** the Dopers have been behaving so badly that we need a rule change. Show me **why** “don’t be a jerk” doesn’t cover these instances. Your intentions are fine, it’s your implementation that’s high-handed, unnecessary, and insulting. Your condescension is only partly in words like “relax.” It is most evident in your refusal to hear what the vast majority are saying. > > None of us needs to swear to make a point. That’s a red herring. We are endlessly creative and can find other ways to let off steam verbally if necessary. But you have not yet explained why you think it’s necessary other than some vague feeling of unease which you cannot or will not articulate. > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/728): > > … There was already a rule in place that dealt with the Rule 2 problem you see **Ed**. All you or a mod had to do was say “ **PosterX** what you just said about **PosterY** crosses the ‘Don’t be a jerk’ line, your posting privileges are under discussion” and decide on the proper punishment. (The same thing could have dealt with posts that crossed the abuse of mod line.) > > The really sad thing is, some of the posters who are the targets of the worst real, personal, abuse here (the thing you want to stop) have posted in this thread, and they don’t want to be protected by you **Ed**. > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/921): > > …I’ve read this whole thread and I still don’t understand why rule two was created. Rule two must have been created because the existing ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule and enforcement failed. When was that?… **Ed Zotti, we’re talking to you** > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/787): > > … People aren’t just throwing tantrums because they can’t call each other “cunts” any more. And yes, if that’s really what you’re getting from these complaints, **Ed** , you come across as either condescending, dismissive, or both. It’s the principle. We think that the tone wasn’t that bad before, and we’ve been around for years contributing to the community and consuming the service you provide. If someone got out of line, or if someone was horribly “abusive” in the past, they were dealt with by the person insulted, by the mods, and by everyone else posting to the BBQ Pit thread. We are the community you are trying to raise the tone of.. … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/490): > > … I see this in a slightly different way. … it’s not that the Pit has gotten suddenly unacceptable for civilized folk, it’s that Ed is no longer tolerant of the “ambiance” there. IOW, (IMO) he isn’t enjoying this any more, if he ever did. … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/733): > > The Boards will go on, of course. So why the brouhaha? Not because you have lost the confidence of the posters, but because you have not had it yet. Maybe that’s an unfair view of your stewardship of these boards, but that’s how it is. In the eyes of the membership, when have you been here aside from the Melin thing and the Tuba thing? > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/639): > > **Ed** —One of the reasons many of us are reacting so badly to your “relax and leave it to me” attitude is that we simply do not trust your judgement any more. > > This whole “rule #2” business is one example of why. But a better example is you [warning a poster for violating the rules DAYS before the rules were even announced](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=506532&page=2). (See posts 90 and 92) … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/668): > > … We’re not allowed to say, “fuck you!” in the Pit anymore—but isn’t that what **Ed** ’s basically said to all of us here? > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/891): > > Ed, I doubt you are reading this but I hope you understand. In the past there has been disagreement, confusion, irratation about some of your actions and from your staff. The anger is not because of those actions. The anger comes from the go fuck yourself attitude directed from the administration towards the posters. Right now you are telling us that these are the rules and we can go fuck ourselves if we don’t like it. Instead how about defending your position. Have your staff comment on it. There is overwhelming opposition to this move. More than I have seen about anything else. If you feel so strongly about it, answer all the questions. … > [@Pit rules have been revised](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-have-been-revised/487256/728): > > … Yeah, you (TPTB) knew. The vocal majority of this board responds very poorly to top down change with no warning or explanation. But you (TPTB) went ahead and did it again anyway. > > If there had been an announcement that TPTB think that there’s a problem in the Pit and think some changes need to be made. Here are the reasons we want to make the changes and these are the changes we propose. Let’s discuss it before we make any changes. This thread wouldn’t exist. > > Would it have gone smoothly, of course not, but you would have seen that the vast majority of posters, really interested in this, didn’t have any problems with most of what you wanted to change. … ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/2 "2009-02-27T22:43:03Z")
My apologies for not replying sooner, but I’ve been snowed with other stuff. Since there have been many complaints about vagueness, what we’ll do over the weekend - in response to a suggestion, incidentally - is post a short list of proscribed words and expressions. I realize this won’t satisfy those who think we should allow Bad Words, but at least you’ll know what the bad words are. ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/3 "2009-02-27T22:46:36Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > My apologies for not replying sooner, but I’ve been snowed with other stuff. Since there have been many complaints about vagueness, what we’ll do over the weekend - in response to a suggestion, incidentally - is post a short list of proscribed words and expressions. I realize this won’t satisfy those who think we should allow Bad Words, but at least you’ll know what the bad words are. **Ed** , thanks for the reply, but please note that this particular thread DOES NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT VAGUENESS. In fact, it complains about your misrepresenting what’s being complained about. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/4 "2009-02-27T23:01:15Z")
In particular, I would appreciate seeing a response to my questions that **emilyforce** pasted above. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/5 "2009-02-27T23:24:30Z")
Well, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what’s being complained about. I’m not sure what else you expect me to say. I wanted to make some minor changes in the Pit rules, so I did. A legitimate complaint arose that it was unclear what was no longer allowed. So we’ll be addressing that problem. I gather some are upset that they weren’t consulted. I’m sorry they feel that way, but this happens to be a matter about which I feel strongly. I manage the business, and while I’m happy to discuss things up to a point, in the end I make the rules, OK? ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/6 "2009-02-27T23:39:26Z")
> [@Hunter\_Hawk](#): > > In particular, I would appreciate seeing a response to my questions that **emilyforce** pasted above. CL expects me to make money on the site, and the metrics they’re interested in have to do with business matters. If as a result of these minor changes site traffic were to drop precipitously, and I mean on the order of millions of page views, I guess that would give me pause, but the chances of that occurring seem remote. Even then it comes down to the kind of site I want to run. We had this same discussion a couple months ago. If my bosses were to come to me and say, “Ed, you need to allow the users to say absolutely anything they want to each other,” I’d say that isn’t what I signed up for, and I’d resign. ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/7 "2009-02-27T23:40:22Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > Well, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what’s being complained about. I’m not sure what else you expect me to say. I wanted to make some minor changes in the Pit rules, so I did. A legitimate complaint arose that it was unclear what was no longer allowed. So we’ll be addressing that problem. I gather some are upset that they weren’t consulted. I’m sorry they feel that way, but this happens to be a matter about which I feel strongly. I manage the business, and while I’m happy to discuss things up to point, in the end I make the rules, OK? Ed, for crying out loud, if you don’t want to address the points quoted, or don’t have time to, that’s fine. But your replies here simply do not address those points. ETA: except post #6, of course :smack: ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/8 "2009-02-27T23:55:24Z")
One thing should be crystal clear, even to the most vociferous of those opposing the new rules. Whether rightly or wrongly, Ed isn’t going to change his mind. That being the case, why don’t we see how this works out in practice? The other option is to leave, but I really can’t see many people quitting over a rule change in the Pit. That really would be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. And for the record, I didn’t think rule 2 was necessary once the vicious attacks on staff had been dealt with by moving those discussions to ATMB. But I’m certainly not going to let that get in the way of my enjoyment of the rest of the board. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/9 "2009-02-27T23:56:19Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > CL expects me to make money on the site, and the metrics they’re interested in have to do with business matters. If as a result of these minor changes site traffic were to drop precipitously, and I mean on the order of millions of page views, I guess that would give me pause, but the chances of that occurring seem remote. Even then it comes down to the kind of site I want to run. We had this same discussion a couple months ago. If my bosses were to come to me and say, “Ed, you need to allow the users to say absolutely anything they want to each other,” I’d say that isn’t what I signed up for, and I’d resign. One of the main things I admired about The Pit was its ability to moderate itself - albeit with the aid of a couple of very level-headed moderators. Without evidence, I am reluctant to believe that there was anything occuring in there that was not being handled adequately, before you came stomping about in your big sexy boots. Make an effort Ed, and convince me and a few others otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![fisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@fisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fisha)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/10 "2009-02-28T00:14:16Z")
Very true, **Ed.** You are the one in charge. I own a construction business. It’s a chew 'em up and spit them out kind of business. I like it, and I do it well. It takes a lot of moxie, and a force of will. There are some of my duties I really enjoy, and several duties I abhor. One thing I have learned is that when making policy, you need to determine what are your issues, and what are the company’s issues. There are many things I feel strongly about, some of them are important and not negotiable. Customer service is one. I will take a loss on a job, if that’s what it takes. Some of them are negotiable. But this is my company, and I make the decisions. As the owner, I also have the responsibility to make sure the people I have working for me are the best I can find. Once I hire them, I have to be able to listen to them, their ideas and suggestions. Even if I don’t like what they are saying, I have faith that they have the company’s best interest at heart. I have to be able to take my ego out of the equation, and do what’s right for the company, not just for myself. You never felt strongly about this for ten years. The SDMB did just fine, and developed it’s own persona and ethos. Wrong or right, that’s what made it what it is today. The people that have been here every day have given you advice. Take it to heart. I think you have bigger fish to fry; more important things that need your attention, and in time, will go back to your usual level of interest in the SDMB, which is minimal. You really don’t want to run a message board. That’s fair. I wouldn’t want to either. Especially if it wasn’t my cup of tea to begin with. Please don’t wreck it while you come to this understanding. Any value it now has will evaporate. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/11 "2009-02-28T00:21:50Z")
I think we’re arriving at a consensus that will simplify life for all; see: > **[Of assholes and dicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508496)** > > Ed Zotti posted the following a couple of hours ago in this thread: Emphasis mine. As a point of clarification: what is the principled distinction you are drawing between “asshole” (okay) and “dick” (not okay)? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/12 "2009-02-28T00:42:37Z")
Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/13 "2009-02-28T00:53:49Z")
[QUOTE=Ed Zotti] Well, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what’s being complained about. I’m not sure what else you expect me to say. I wanted to make some **minor changes** in the Pit rules, so I did.(bolding added for emphasis) [/QUOTE] They were not by any stretch of the imagination “minor changes”. It’s disingenuous to represent them as such. > [@](#): > > A **legitimate complaint** arose that it was unclear what was no longer allowed. So we’ll be addressing that problem.(bolding added for emphasis) At least you acknowledge that posters were genuinely confused by the new rules. Not whining, not indulging in recreational staff-bashing but honestly puzzled as to what you wanted. So props for that. > [@](#): > > I gather some are upset that they weren’t consulted. I’m sorry they feel that way, but this happens to be a matter about which I feel strongly. I manage the business, and while I’m happy to discuss things up to a point, in the end I make the rules, OK? What exactly was the point where you were happy to discuss things? It’s nice that you’re willing to listen now but it would have made so much more sense to discuss first, _then_ decide. Of course it’s your board and you can do with it what you like. Power comes in equal measure to responsibility. I didn’t notice a huge problem with The Pit or that staff were being slagged more than usual. But that was my perception and you were absolutely right to address problems _you_ perceived. This whole mess is unusually distressing because so much trouble and ill will could have been avoided while still achieving your ends. Speaking as a former Pit mod, I really loved the place, not the least because so many conversations ended up being thoughtful, well-argued and very interesting. It _wasn’t_ just a swamp of vapid cussing. Sometimes obscenities were tossed around casually but nobody mocked that more remorselessly than Pit denizens. Of course the usual self-annointed carpers and board critics bashed mods for warning, bannings, etc. BUT frequently they ended up derided by more sensible posters. It was a loose but fairly efficient self-cleaning system. Consulting posters doesn’t remotely imply a lack of power or ultimate authority. It amounts to nothing more than asking, “Whaddya think?” Some opinions offered would be frankly ridiculous. The really nifty thing about asking first is that it gives posters latitude to argue themselves around to your position. It also irons out ambiguities and fuzzy spots beforehand, which works a treat to save both face and a ton of hassle. Then it’s _easy_ to step in, say “Okay, here’s what we’re going to do”, with posters themselves acting as supporters and enforcers. The godawful biz-jargon “buy-in” is a damned useful concept. I think you and the admins badly underestimated the amount of support you had. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/14 "2009-02-28T01:03:26Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > I didn’t notice a huge problem with The Pit or that staff were being slagged more than usual. I agree entirely with this sentence. But . . . If, for instance, a decision has been made that **Ed** no longer wants his staff to be abused (a far less easy point for you or me, or, in my opinion, most posters to disagree with), that is easily solved by one simple change: All comments or complaints about moderator actions belong in ATMB. Such a new rule would not have caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/15 "2009-02-28T02:25:52Z")
**Ed** , thanks for continuing the discussion. It’s much appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/16 "2009-02-28T02:47:34Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > Consulting posters doesn’t remotely imply a lack of power or ultimate authority. It amounts to nothing more than asking, “Whaddya think?” Some opinions offered would be frankly ridiculous. The really nifty thing about asking first is that it gives posters latitude to argue themselves around to your position. It also irons out ambiguities and fuzzy spots beforehand, which works a treat to save both face and a ton of hassle. Then it’s _easy_ to step in, say “Okay, here’s what we’re going to do”, with posters themselves acting as supporters and enforcers. > > The godawful biz-jargon “buy-in” is a damned useful concept. > > I think you and the admins badly underestimated the amount of support you had. You know, we could have a long discussion about better or worse ways to do this. All I know is, we made a lot of little tweaks, and they just weren’t solving the problem. So my feeling was, I’ll just jump into this with both feet, and everybody will scream and shout, and eventually we’ll wind up with something everybody can live with. Which I think is basically what’s going to happen. So it took like, what, five days? C’mon, Veb, you used to do this. That’s record time. So yeah, everybody thinks I’m an asshole. Worse things have happened. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/17 "2009-02-28T04:47:02Z")
Wow. You just don’t get it, do you? ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/18 "2009-02-28T05:00:31Z")
[QUOTE=Ed Zotti] You know, we could have a long discussion about better or worse ways to do this. All I know is, we made a lot of little tweaks, and they just weren’t solving the problem. So my feeling was, I’ll just jump into this with both feet, and everybody will scream and shout, and eventually we’ll wind up with something everybody can live with. Which I think is basically what’s going to happen. So it took like, what, five days? C’mon, Veb, you used to do this. That’s record time. So yeah, everybody thinks I’m an asshole. Worse things have happened. [/QUOTE] Actually the Pit rules revision **Giraffe** and I cobbled together (and due credit, the Tall One did most of the heavy lifting) went remarkably smoothly. It wasn’t _fast_ but it ticked right along. But simply putting the rough outline out there for discussion eased implementation to barely a ripple. Posters spotted some hidden snags we missed completely. Those unintended consequences can be a bitch. And all the back-and-forthing was confined neatly to one stickied thread. The past five days aren’t any record to celebrate. It damaged how TPTB are regarded and spawned a lot cynicism. It also handed ammunition right over like a gift to the self-appointed carpers, and upset a lot of really good posters who stuck with the board through good times and bad. Screaming and shouting can be minimized. ::shrugs:: It’s water over the dam at this point. I’m just not sure that you (collective ‘you’) really get how thoroughly the board culture has changed. The freewheeling good old days, with hilarious slashdowns by **Lynn** and **manhattan** , are well and truly over. Flying by the seat of your pants just doesn’t work anymore. ---
**Author:** ![MonkeyMensch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@MonkeyMensch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeyMensch)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/19 "2009-02-28T05:18:32Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > My apologies for not replying sooner, but I’ve been snowed with other stuff. Since there have been many complaints about vagueness, what we’ll do over the weekend - in response to a suggestion, incidentally - is post a short list of proscribed words and expressions. I realize this won’t satisfy those who think we should allow Bad Words, but at least you’ll know what the bad words are. Thanks, Ed, for listening. Don’t know where we’ll go from here, but it’s terrific to see a timely response. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ed-please-read-this-digest-of-reactions-to-new-pit-rule-2-that-youve-been-ignoring/487722/20 "2009-02-28T05:57:45Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > You know, we could have a long discussion about better or worse ways to do this. All I know is, we made a lot of little tweaks, and they just weren’t solving the problem. So my feeling was, I’ll just jump into this with both feet, and everybody will scream and shout, and eventually we’ll wind up with something everybody can live with. Which I think is basically what’s going to happen. So it took like, what, five days? C’mon, Veb, you used to do this. That’s record time. So yeah, everybody thinks I’m an asshole. Worse things have happened. **Ed** , I still have some problems with the proposed changes and with the way you have handled (or not handled) the complaints from many of the Members. That being said, I do sense _some_ calming down by many on both sides of this issue; some potential for compromise, and in general, just a more responsive, considerate vibe coming from you in the last few hours or so. Perhaps there is a way out of this mess yet, but part of the anger from some of us has come about because of some poor (and rather snarky) communication on your end, especially when this whole shitstorm started. A larger part of the anger has come from the fear of the Pit losing much of its value if a overly heavy-handed approach is taken against posters who are judged to have broken some rather nebulous standard clearly understood by no one other than yourself. Anyway-- my thoughts are a little disjointed here, I admit, but basically I am trying to compliment you on some improvement in the way you have gone about explaining your reasoning AND for sparring the whip and avoiding any knee-jerk bannings so far. I still have my problems with Rule #2, but I have some glimmer of hope that if everyone could compromise just a bit we may be able to get past this eventually, although some of the bad-feelings and pissed-offedness has been fair, quite frankly, and it’ll take some time for the bad feelings to pass. But you can do it, I hope, if you can just let us keep our freedom to express things the way we see fit unless it really, REALLY gets out of hand. I urge you to judge these things on a case-by-case basis, leaving us the freedom we have come to love in the Pit, including calling someone a cunt if they are, well, being a cunt. Most of us can take it, you know, and I don’t think that kind of invective gets used that much anyway. A little bit of it, properly applied here and there, needn’t crash this whole thing to the ground, IMO. Thanks.