This is a serious and genuine question - and I’ve no idea which forum it should be in. I don’t want to put it in the Pit, but I’m concerned about the consequences if I put it elsewhere. Mods pleas put it where you see fit.
With reference to this thread: I just want to get this straight, and I don’t want to hijack Fenris’s thread. If you’ve put ‘non pit rules apply’ in your title when you open a thread, then why is it in the Pit? I’m getting really confused about the rules now. Is it because discussions of the board should be in the Pit (I think I remember Ed Zotti saying something about this), but the poster wants it to be an ATMB type discussion? If so, I’m confused about the purpose of ATMB.
I was under the impression that the “Non-Pit rules Apply” caveat was only to be imposed by moderators. I would be surprised if posters could turn the rules on or off at will.
Right, I didn’t read the entire thread, but it did seem that the NPRA tag was to be imposed by mods on Pit threads which were deemed worthy of discussion but needed to not live by Pit thread rules any more for unspecified reasons, but for some reason it wouldn’t be prudent to just open a non-Pit thread discussing the topic according to the rules of whatever forum the new thread was created in.
Thanks for clearing that up, Ed. That’ll make for some smooth sailing, you betcha.
More to the point, the thread started by Ed seemed to be saying the mods have the right to impose whatever rules they see fit, in any forum, if it seems appropriate to do so (see prior re: whatever rules they see fit).
Fenris put it in his title - hence my confusion. But what if you want to have ATMB discussion, which (I believe) has to be put in the Pit, but don’t want a flame-fest?
See, that’s the thing though. Someone wants to get on someone, or something, but doesn’t want to deal with back-lash … so they just go with they, “Hey, play nice” tag in the title.
If that’s the case, then what is the Pit for? And what are the other forums for, if not for playing nice?
If it were me, I would put such a discussion in ATMB. Non-Pit rules would then apply by default. I believe that complaints about moderation, which AFAIK you are correct in stating should be in the Pit, would go into the Pit under normal Pit rules until it spun out of control, or began to trend towards “un-civil”, in which case the mods would impose the NPR heading.
I suspect this is going to be one of those rules where you just have to know.
Unringing a bell … getting toothpaste back in the tube … there has to be an apt analogy.
In a situation like that, changing the rules of the thread in mid-stream strikes me as a cop-out.
Shit like this happens all the time now, and the thread either dies an inglorious death on its own or it’s closed down. That seems to work pretty well … relatively speaking.
But just saying, “ok, page 7, you can’t use any more mean words now,” seems like it’s going to stir up more shit than it flushes. It’s going to be a contest: who can get the last grevious insult in before we have to start the circle-jerk.
In [this thread](But the Pit is the designated place for discussing Mods and Mod Actions. And the Pit is also the designated place for abusing the snot out of each other. Instead of declaring rules on an ad hoc, per-thread basis, wouldn’t it be simpler to designate a non-Pit forum (ATMB, probably) for all Mod & Moderator Action discussions? It would effectively be declaring the mods off-limits for pittings, which is not ideal, but probably better than allowing mods to be pitted up to some vague and probably moving degree. Better, I mean, in the sense of a) being easier to apply and b) being easier to explain and c) being less likely to turn into a hydra of varyingly confused and pissed off posters. Making AMTB the designated Mod discussion forum would ensure that all players understand up-front that civility is mandatory when addressing those topics. It would also let the Pit be the Pit with a consistant set of rules for all players and topics.) Merneith agrees with you - and so do I.
I agree with your reasoning, and I used #2 as the reason for putting it in my thread title. But - if we are allowed to use it - then my point is that it might as well go in ATMB.
Ed Zotti’s new “rule” is not meant to address a common problem. He says himself that otherwise worthwhile threads turning into flame fests that could be rescued with an NPR are rare.
The other thing he wants to avoid is discussions of mod action that get out of hand, or start trending to be ‘un-civil’. AFAICT, this means a discussion of mod actions that is too obviously indefensible, and that ignoring hasn’t caused to go away.
I mean, really - Ed locks the thread discussing Euthanasiast’s suspension (once the suspension is up), because he want to keep the discussion focused (cite). But the new thread he starts does not address the points raised at all. And the ideas in his OP about NPR won’t address it either.
And we get this kind of thing
at the start of the thread. Then a couple of posters display a less-than-worshipful attitude towards him, and we get this –
Apparently he has the time and energy to cop an attitude when someone reminds him who is the client. But when it comes to discussion where he or the other mods might have to admit a mistake, they make up a rule to shift the blame onto the poster.
The mods are always right. When the mods are wrong, circle the wagons and tell everyone who doesn’t like it to go away.
It’s just a stupid attempt to retroactively make a suspension that got some criticism seem more justified.
It’s especially stupid because I supported the suspension, but the board admins don’t have the balls to stick to their guns when someone inevitably disagrees with their modding behavior.
We have a forum for civil discussions on board policy: ATMB
We have a forum for civil (more or less) discussions of politics and religion: GD
We have a forum for civil chatter and mild rants: MPSIMS
If anyone wishes to start a non-pit thread about anything there are 9 forums they can use.
I don’t think the pit should be a total free for all, but I don’t see what’s broken about it. It works fine as is.
Can I get the TLDR version of all of these threads? Is the translation that the MPSIMS kitten huggers have established a beachhead in the Pit and we all need to start farting stars and rainbows?
Not exactly.
[ul][li]Euthanasiast started a Pit thread whose title said that Planned Parenthood didn’t care about the rape of a thirteen year old. This was about a nurse that worked there, and it was a sting. [/li][li]Lynn Bodoni warned him for trolling.[]He told her to fuck off. []She had a mod discussion about it, and Ed Zotti told her to suspend him for a week, so she did.[]The week of the suspension the mods spent circling the wagons and contradicting themselves about the rules.[]Now Ed Zotti started a thread where he thinks that, if a Pit thread gets out of hand, he will put NPR in the thread title, and then Non-Pit Rules will apply to that thread for the rest of the discussion.[*]Penis has ensued.[/ul]All that remains is the repetition of “If you don’t like how we run things, fuck off” a few hundred times.[/li]
Regards.
Shodan
This rule seems perfectly silly. So now we’re obligated to comb a whole Pit thread carefully before posting to ensure there was no “Non Pit Rules Apply” post from a mod somewhere in the 15 pages of discussion?
It’s either the pit or it isn’t. If people are doing something wrong, ban or suspend them after a warning or two. If the whole thread is fucked, lock it.
