Given that the language in question isn’t to be directed at another poster even in Pit threads, let alone titles:
I’m curious as to what would be redacted from a thread title.
Also puzzling over “we don’t want this language to be used even in Pit threads, but we’ll let it stay on the forum page for weeks, and occasionally let it show up on the SDMB main page.” It strikes me as an indication that no, the Dope isn’t particularly bothered when people say “fuck you” to each other. Which is fine, but then it’s peculiar that Ed felt it was necessary to specifically prohibit that.
Like I said in the “fuck you, drad dog” thread, where the lines are drawn around here is becoming less rather than more clear to me over time. So can anyone run out and get me a four year old child? I can’t make head or tail of this.
You could look at the mod notes in the thread. Miller addressed your question there. he’s also has a history of being as lenient as reasonably possible regarding “Fuck you, [poster]”.
The poster who started the thread got a mod note for his language, as usual. Generally speaking, when someone breaks a board rule, we don’t edit their post to make their infraction disappear, although there are some exceptions. I’m not sure there’s more to say about it than that.
Why? It’s one of the stupid arbitrary decisions Ed made around the time of Cuntgate that he’s unable to back down from. Nobody is bothered about “fuck you” except him but he’s in charge so it sticks. Miller has done his best to ignore a spectacularly idiotic rule* and done a great job being consistent about it.
And editing a post or a thread title is rarely done…and almost never done to cover up a rules infraction.
*It becomes even more idiotic when it was specifically ruled that the phrase “go fuck a cactus” was just peachy-keen.
Given that the “don’t go nuts in thread titles” rule specifically addresses profanity, the notion that the remedy to be applied in ‘over the top’ instances wouldn’t apply to profanity specifically prohibited by board rules seems to be nonsensical. When exactly would this remedy be applied?
Seriously, does this rule have meaning, or is it vacuous?
Gatopescado: it’s from Duck Soup.
Minister of Finance: Here is the Treasury Department’s report, sir. I hope you’ll find it clear.
Rufus T. Firefly: Clear? Huh. Why a four-year-old child could understand this report.(pause) Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can’t make head or tail of it.
OK, this at least makes sense. Guess the mods themselves couldn’t give this explanation, but it makes far more sense of things than anything they were able to say.
Unless any mods want to further comment on what Fenris posted here, I’m good with closing this thread.
Man, who knew my Pit ignorance would be so kerfuffle-riffic. Again the target of my pitting is certainly welcome to go fuck something if that will…rectify things.