How should the Pit be changed, if at all?

There’s a reason this list exists.

Thrice Told Tales are off limits. Over the last 20 years, posters in Great Debates and Politics and Elections have debated pretty much everything. As such, there are some contentious issues about which we are tired of hearing. We just don’t want to go around and around about these things any more. In general, we’re just tired of these subjects. It may, however, be that there’s something new under the sun. Posters may start threads on these subjects only with prior approval of a Great Debates or Politics and Elections moderator. If you think you’ve got a new angle on something we’ve discussed a million times and found unpleasant, please feel free to make your case. Getting one approved is a very heavy lift, however.

Scientific racism or any particular argument about why any particular group of humans is inherently better than any other group

Holocaust Denial . Seriously, guys. If someone wants to seriously debate whether the holocaust occurred, we can safely say they’re not someone we want here

Encouraging discrimination against any minority groups. This can include race, gender, sexual orientation or any other group into which a person might belong. Such depresses debate and discussion and in contrary to the goals of Great Debates and Elections

Men’s Rights Advocacy . This can include threads about how men are somehow disadvantaged in society, women are somehow genetically inferior or have a predisposition toward specific gender roles and other threads about the ways in which men are somehow naturally entitled to be in charge

9/11 Truthers . This includes any information about how either 9/11 didn’t happen, it was a false flag operation by the government or any other idea that denies the events of that day.

Climate Change Denialism . We believe the science. While there is room to debate ways to deal with climate change, the existence of such is an observed fact.

That lists leaves plenty of room though for stupidity to be posted and hopefully thoroughly refuted. So what Sam posted is also an important part of GD.

The list exists as some subjects were just plain tired. The list is a pretty good one but far from all encompassing.

My point is that GD has been silencing some people for at least 18 months.

Hmm, interesting. A compromise between both sides.

I like #3, but #2 works also.

I think it would be better to stick with “these posts by Poster xxxx show trolling to me”. I want to see the posts, not just “Poster xxxx is a troll.”

But yeah, this compromise, while by no means what I want as a end product, would show some results, i think.

Show me your list of trolls found by the Pit which were NOT reported to the Mods.

How do you know?

I give people the benefit of the doubt.

For one, do they boast of coming from a site known for spreading misinformation?

BTW

You still haven’t answered my earlier question- Exactly what point were you trying to make when you Pitted me?

It is to laugh. That has been disproven. And even so, they can be educated.

My point was that people who hate turnips also hate rutabagas, of course, what else? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Nobody knows.

No, seriously -what point were you trying to prove when you Pitted me?

At the risk of junior modding, can we not sidetrack this thread with rehashing unrelated drama and get it closed like all the others on this topic, please? Thanks.

No, it really has not.

Yeah, this is good advice.

I went back to the start of the current Troll R US thread, and did a tally for the 1st 500 posts (from last summer). Note in some cases the R US post failed to link to the thread/post and/or didn’t specify the exact handle-was forced to throw those out (1 fit that description). In some cases their failure to come up on search indicated that they were cornfielded.

:Long-term posters who are still active: 8 [Ashtura, Whack-A-Mole, Velocity, Octopus, jtur88, JohnT, Omar Little, Kearsen1]

Bannees: 23 [incl. 11 who were cornfielded]

No longer active: 8. But almost all of these were long-term Dopers, around for at least a year before they got called out, most of which didn’t bail on the board soon after their Pitting. I’ll list them in case anyone wants to examine them more closely:

jim23
YWTF
Pavelb1 [the only newbie when he got pitted then bailed soon after, BUT someone recognized the secondary name in his profile as that of a long-term Doper from when we ran vBulletin)
duffer
putnam6
SayTwo
agzem
Harrington

You can also examine why they were being called out, if you like: seemed to me like in almost all cases the pitting was warranted-only jim23 seemed like an unfair case, just a brief accusation of being a sock, then no more attention whatsoever.

BUT: the kicker is that I could find no newbies who were Pitted there, then shaped up (as in were not pitted anymore from then on) and became a frequent and useful contributors to the board. The 8 in category one were typically repeat offenders, with many people in the R US thread calling them out numerous times over the lifespan of the thread.

If anyone wants to continue from post #501 knock yourself out.

Thank you for taking the time to do that (definitely exhausting) research. It’s nice to have numbers, and I would say 500 posts is a representative sample. Sure, we could do more, but I think given the percentages of the poll, it would have to be the anti-pit side to make their case.

Well, thanks for the effort, that seems quite convincing to me, in that it indicates that it neither drives off everyone, nor does it overwhelmingly miss its target.

Thanks! I’ve been wanting someone to do that for a while.
Hopefully someone else will pick up where you left off.

Looks like we’re done here.

Just a quick aside, one of the ‘no longer active’ posters mentioned in @John_DiFool 's excellent review has indeed surfaced today. Specifically azgem posted a link (with no commentary) in the recent QZ thread about Sweden’s experiment being a failure. The discourse reminder that it had been 7 months since the last post caught my eye and my crappy but still functional brain managed the cross-link to this thread.

It does overwhelmingly miss it’s target. 500 posts, 23 bannees, 11 who were cornfielded as they were spammers or more likely socks. That is a 5% hit rate.

Now of those 23, what we need is for a Mod to say how many of them were reported. Of course the LT posters had reports, but of the 11, I would like to see if any of them only were pitted and not reported.

That’s not quite right. Not every one of the 500 posts was a shot. That’s like arguing that “successful shots” our of “shots on goal” is a bad metric in soccer, instead we should compare “successful shots” to “times people touched the ball with their foot”.