No, but the rule change there was that “mothefucker” had previously been banned, and “pedophile” had not.
Frankly, there’s more problems than obscenity, but how does one combat bad faith?
I’m kind of ambivalent about this. I don’t see why people doing their absolute best to insult others in every which way should be fundamentally different than introducing “deep personal trauma”. But not a big deal. I do think there need to be two exceptions, though.
-
If someone is making a substantive point in a general way, and any insult to the other poster is incidental. For example, suppose hypothetically someone is arguing that rape/abuse victims should not sit on juries judging people accused of such crimes since their rational judgment might reasonably be impacted, someone else shouldn’t be able to complain “as a rape/abuse victim myself I find it highly traumatic to be told that I am now to be disqualified from even serving on juries in such cases …”
-
Where the traumatized person themselves introduces their circumstances as a way of bolstering one side of an argument. So if the discussion is about juries as above and someone says “I’m a rape/abuse victim myself and I think I and my fellow victims can be perfectly rational about such cases …”, I don’t think it would be appropriate to bar the other guy from responding “no, I don’t think you and your fellow victims can be assumed to be as rational as a non-victim …”, even though in this case the poster is addressing the traumatized person’s circumstance directly.
To do otherwise would alter the nature of discussions of these issues, and allow personal trauma to be used as a trump card (or human shield).
Where do you draw the line between “personal trauma is a trump card” vs “personal trauma gives you relevant experience that the non-survivor just doesn’t have”?
Asking as a teenaged male rape survivor who was outright told by a now thankfully departed poster that I didn’t know what I was talking about with regards to the mechanics of Sandusky’s raping, but they did.
Was my rape a “trump card”, or just enough experience that I could say I knew and they obviously didn’t?
Miller, I think that your style and standards in moderating the Pit have been damn near perfect. I prefer the judgment of a reasonable person to a bunch of rules-lawyering.
There’s no line necessary; these are not on the same axis.
Personal trauma is a “trump card” if the other poster is barred by rule from responding to your experience-based argument. It’s “relevant experience” if they are not.
^This.
TPTB need to go back to putting a short leash on anyone whose raison d’être is to rile people up. Particularly those who start dancing around, almost but not quite explicitly admitting that they’re trolling.
Why do they start dancing around? It’s the “I’m not touching you” argument; they know they’re pissing people off and TPTB are way too hesitant to do anything about it.
From what well of experience does dude number 2’s opinion come? Given the way this board reacts to rape victims, that’s just another misogynist assault. Maybe in some wonderful future world, that kind of opinion would not be ignorant, but there was a bunch of guys in the Pit calling Christine Blasey-Ford a liar while defending Kavanaugh, who did lie about several things, under oath, before Congress. I don’t think we got any conservative defending those viewpoints to answer a direct question.
What’s reasonable? When one is posting insults in the pit aimed at another poster the intent is to make the other poster mad or to hurt their feelings. Insults that are too effective according to an in-group are bad while those from the in-group are perfectly reasonable?
To be fair, whatever the reprehensible dial is set at, objectivity is important.
I tend to think accusations of serious criminal conduct by other posters made flippantly (i.e. “you’re a pedophile”) should probably be outlawed, but I could be biased since someone did that to me. It was so obviously made flippantly and dishonestly that it caused me no worry (and such flippant insults probably don’t cause any real problems), but such nonsense could be crafted in a way to mimic real and substantial accusations of criminal wrongdoing, which seems like it ought to be well out of bounds in that it could lead to all types of trouble. With that in mind, seems like it might be smart to ban that category of insults since it’s such a tiny “slice” of insults that could cause much bigger problems.
On another note, I think misogyny should be treated the same as other forms of hate speech – i.e. “slut” should be treated like racial slurs. Slurs against women are just as bad as slurs against various races and ethnicities, IMO.
Slurs against women aren’t even recognized as slurs.
Far be it from me to stick up for D’Anconia, but isn’t this the forum to do so? 
Read the red text in the OP.
:smack:
Sorry 'bout that. Never mind. :o
Miller, I think the Pit is moderated just fine, and I like how you tell people to knock it off without pulling out the WARNING ISSUED card most of the time. I think your reminders to do this or not do that work well and people tend to follow them.
I wouldn’t mind prohibitions about, for example, slagging on someone’s kids, but the first few would get the Reminder, No warning Issued treatment, and after that, warnings for not following moderator direction.
There’s my useless two cents.
I think moderation here is great for the most part, but I would like to see a prohibition on using personal information about someone as an insult against them. For many people, the SDMB is a place they can share something about themselves that they aren’t comfortable sharing elsewhere. If everyone knows that any admission in MPSIMS can be used as ammo against them in the Pit, it closes that support channel.
I think you can address some of the concerns expressed above with some simple rules. First, things you did are fair game, things that happened to you are not. People can insult you because you choose not to vaccinate your kids. But when your kid dies because you didn’t vaccinate him, someone shouldn’t be able to laugh at you for having a dead kid. If you enlist in the Army, people can insult you for choosing to fight an immoral war. If you come back with PTSD, people don’t get to make loony bin cracks.
And for concerns like this:
It’s perfectly acceptable to use information the poster provided in arguments against them, like your example above. What shouldn’t be allowed is using their status as a rape/abuse survivor as an insult.
Another one chiming in to say that I have no problems with the way the Pit is currently moderated, and (Dept. of ass-kissing) I’ve long considered Miller’s moderation to be some of the best on the board.
Although I’ll admit to being appalled by the lowness of the abuse handed out by some of the more egregious assholes around here, I’ve never been much for handing out the billingsgate myself and pretty much let 'em slide. Hell, I once made a joke out of a comment by one of these worthies about fucking my dead mother (life’s too short, etc.)
Executive summary: keep on keepin’ on.
This isn’t Pit specific, but I want the “don’t be a jerk” rule to be enforced **much **more broadly and with an understanding that it is amorphous and subjective.
Even the pit, there are times when people go, “hey, woah, simmer down.” Moments like that represent a violation of community standards - a legal concept used when determining whether something violates obscenity laws. The Pit may have a looser set of standards than the rest of the board, but it can still have standards.
Basically, I want you to enforce a SDMB-specific version of the aptly named Miller test.
I think the Pit serves a good function as a boxing ring, but right now it’s more of a dumpster.
I am personally just fine with people racking up warnings (again, not just in the pit) for acting contrary to the overall tone of the board and being smacked with the “don’t be a jerk” rule. If a poster’s notion of jerkishness - in the pit or elsewhere - does not jive with the rest of the board, that is okay because there are other places on the internet with different community standards. We don’t have to be all things to all people.
Fuck you all.
What, no cactus?