The difficulty for you is that your OP doesn’t rise above “vulgarity is not necessary” and “I don’t want to be exposed to vulgarity”. Your OP doesn’t rise to the level of suggesting that you are harmed by vulgarity to which you not exposed, which is what it would take for your “racist hatred” comparison to work.
The first proposition is arguably true but irrelevant since lack of necessity is not on its own an appropriate basis for preventing something.
The second proposition is irrelevant since going to the Pit is voluntary and you will not be exposed to any vulgarity expressed there unless you go there.
Sorry but this is totally illogical. Our respective positions are not equivalent as you are supporting the prevention of the operation of the old pit and I am not supporting the prevention of anything.
I am not expressing any dislike of being exposed to the new Pit. If I don’t like it, I won’t go there. If others do like it, I won’t support it being outlawed even if it suited me.
You on the other hand are arguing against the old Pit on precisely grounds that only make sense if one assumes that people were in some way affected by it, when people only were if they went there.
Beating somebody up is assault. I think you mean, “Here is a forum in which you can beat each other up- but no deathmatches!”, and it’s a very apt comparison.
I am not necessarily in favor of the new rules, but I’m certainly not against them, and all the “how dare he!?!?” whining (and totally unnecessary vitriol being directed at Ed and the staff) is making me sick, and making the new rules seem like a better idea.
No, his first formulation was more apt, and I’m quite certain that he knows that beating people up is assault. Assume that he does, and then think through his original formulation again, and you might understand his point.
If the moderators could be trusted to act consistently and reasonably, there would be no need to have the rules defined down to the last semicolon, but since the moderation has become more and more capricious, and at times down right immoderate, the level of trust necessary to “call it when I see it” no longer exists. Quite simply, Ed has lost the trust of so many of the people who create the content of the SDMB that they require him to be very specific in setting out his rules, and many are leaving for http://domebo.net/forum
I suppose I made the mistake of a) giving a shit about the boards, b) having an independent thought or two, and c) incorrectly assuming that threads were for discussion. I realise now that they are designed to be segregated echo chambers where everyone just enjoys the sound of their own voice. Thanks for clearing that up.
Regardless, I’m not whining, and you can keep your dull little junior modding attempts to yourself, thanks all the same. I’ve been talking quite constructively with Ed in other threads, in an effort to at least arrive at rules that are understandable. I don’t think Ed’s out to destroy the boards, nor do I really think that the now-comprehensible rules will kill the Pit. I do think that misguided or unclear moderation policies will further poison the atmosphere, however, and would rather not see this happen. I also have a fair bit of moderation experience, and as a result find discussing moderation policy relatively interesting (on a discussion board of all things - what a dope, eh?).
Finally, thank you ever so much for your concern that I may have misspoken, but if I write it, I mean it. The original rule was entirely contradictory to the stated purpose of the Pit. If you have trouble understanding anything else I’ve written, feel free to ask before applying your own interpretation.