It looks to me like the current decision to allow people to snark at me anywhere in the Pit is just asking for trouble and extra work for the moderators. Up to now the rule (driven mostly by Marley and Colibri, IIRC) has been that paper towel tube snark is forbidden anywhere outside the Paterno thread. The reason being that the moderators felt the subject of child rape is so upsetting that posters shouldn’t be exposed to it unless they voluntarily choose to enter the Paterno thread in the Pit.
Now that decision has apparently been amended to allow paper towel tube snark outside the Paterno thread as long as it’s kept in the Pit.
Naturally this caused me to wonder where I stand in regard to whether or not I can respond to these posts since as far as I know I’m still forbidden to challenge them. Some confusion exists also on my part because most of the snark that gets posted is posted about me, not to me, and therefore I don’t know that even if I’m allowed to respond, can I respond to those either since they aren’t posted directly to me. I asked for a ruling on the matter in the RNATB thread and the response was an exasperated “Enough.” and the thread was closed.
At first I felt compelled to start another thread to seek clarification as to whether or not I was going to be allowed to answer back when these posters are allowed to take their pot-shots at me, but an alternative solution occurred to me instead which I think would go a long way toward toward keeping the board’s moderators from having to rule either that I won’t be allowed to respond to these attacks or to okay it and then have to be putting out fires endlessly as mini-Paterno hijacks erupt in threads all over the Pit.
Since much of the problem with the board’s previous ruling is that with the passage of time many posters aren’t aware of the rule, why not just keep the rule as it was but then enforce it in much the same way that Miller has been enforcing the rule against sexually insulting language toward other posters in the Pit? What would be wrong with saying to an offending poster, in whichever forum he or she may be, something along the lines of:
See, easy-peasy.
This approach has worked very well in keeping forbidden language out of the Pit and it could work just as well to enforce the paper towel ruling as it’s been up till now.
I’m realize that the board’s moderators will likely find it difficult to adopt this suggestion as they’re doing so might be interpreted either as an attempt to protect me or a capitulation to an unpopular poster. But I think that if looked at objectively the solution I’m proposing serves everyone very well. It’s easier on unaware posters; it’s easier on and makes less work for the board’s moderators; and it keeps offensive Paterno-related comments and imagery out of the Pit in general and limited to the Paterno thread where the board’s moderators decided years ago it should be kept. This would be a win-win situation for everyone but those who want the freedom to snark at me at will while knowing I can’t answer back.
Barring that, I ask again whether I’ll be allowed to respond in kind now that posters are allowed to take paper towel tube potshots at me outside the Paterno thread in the Pit?
(To MichaelEmouse): Yes, I’m aware of that. Still I have my hopes, because in my opinion it’s the mods and unaware posters who are the ones who stand to benefit the most. I really don’t see the upside for the mods in issuing rulings that are only going to make their jobs more contentious and difficult and increase their workload, when the only thing it accomplishes it to allow a certain posters to begin taking pot shots at me outside the Paterno thread.
And I’m assuming anyone trying to skirt the rules would be dealt with through mod notes or warnings like they are now in regard to people who try to skirt the rules on any other subject.
As for now though, I’m going to drop out of the thread so that it doesn’t become a debate between me and other posters (not you, of course). It’s probably best that the remedy I suggested be discussed among the mods (hopefully) without the background noise of my presence leading to arguments with other posters.
SA, I feel that if you have a question about a policy that only applies to you, it would have been better to handle it by PMs and emails rather than starting a thread on the topic.
That said, I’m wondering about your claim that the problem here was really that the moderators “felt the subject of child rape is so upsetting that posters shouldn’t be exposed to it unless they voluntarily choose to enter the Paterno thread in the Pit.” If that was the case, there should be a broader prohibition of the topic of Joe Paterno as well as a number of other topics. As far as I know, this isn’t the case.
My understanding was that the issue wasn’t about the topic of child rape. It was about people referring to something you wrote in order to harass you.
If you did that, you could conduct 99 empirical tests at the same time. We’d just need an additional volunteer to make it a round* number.
*So round, it’s nearly as round as boy butt. Tight, tender, tempting boy butt.
I was just about to hit the sack but decided to check back in and what do I find? A couple of perfect examples of what the Pit is about to become under the new ruling.
I hope the mods will take note of these posts in light of Jonathan Chance’s ruling:
So here we are not even out of the starting gate and already we have a preview of the kind of careful word choosing and fellow poster respect, not to mention non-harassment, that we can look forward to once this particular cat is let out of the bag.
Have you ever read a story about Kanye West that says, “Kanye West, who once said ‘George Bush does not like black people’…”
Is that “stalking” Kanye West? Or do we often find it important to provide context through reference to people’s own words?
Starving Artist has a history of making the most offensive and profane statements on this board. Some of them pertain to his defense of Joe Paterno. Others pertain to his stance on civil rights, the halcyon days that preceded them, and the causal role that they, and other liberal positions played in essentially all social ills present today.
I have seen moderators here bring up his past statements on civil rights. Is this stalking? Or is it important that people’s past statements establish a context for their interactions with others in the future? If the reputations of our sdmb personas do not matter, why not allow socks here?
The matter at hand here involves someone advancing arguably the most horrific and offensive set of statements ever written here. Not only offering them, but reiterating them and dancing in celebration of their logic and their incontrovertible physics-based proof. Those statements and postions were never recanted nor apologized for. It is not at all unfair to allow someone to be held to account for saying offensive things.
The alternative would seem to be that you can never remind people about horrific things Starving Artist has said, for example, about civil rights or the causes of the struggles that African Americans presently face.
For whatever reason, Starving Artist seems to expect that we should respect him as a fellow poster, which, for whatever reason, seems to involve not bringing up anything he’s said in the past. I, for one, remember what he’s said in the past, and to be forbidden from bringing it up where and when it’s appropriate, Pit or not, is simply nonsense.
Primarily to keep posters with a grudge from posting bullshit about me that I’m forbidden to challenge. Secondarily, to propose a solution that continues past practice but in a way that doesn’t require the mods to play referee or have to contend with whether or not a poster knows of the rule. Thirdly, to find out if the mods’ decision to allow paper towel tube and other Paterno related snark in the Pit is also going to allow me to respond in kind. Currently I’m forbidden to address anything having to do with paper towel tubes or anything else Paterno outside that thread.
I’m never the one to bring it up. And I don’t particularly care if it ends or not. But I do want to be able to fight back if people are going to be allowed to snark at, insult, or spread lies about me, as the moderator decisions in the “I protest” thread are now going to allow in the Pit where previously they’ve been constrained to the Paterno thread.
Because this forum was created to discuss moderator actions and what I’m doing is suggesting an alternative to recent moderator decisions. And believe it or not, I’m really a pretty nice guy. I really don’t relish the moderators for having to deal with all this crap, and once it begins in the Pit it’s not only going to get out of hand there but will bleed over to the other forums as well. I have no problem with nor anything against most of the moderators on the board, and I don’t believe it does anyone, including myself, any good for them to have to continue to deal with this crap on an ongoing basis…which has been the case periodically for three years now and threatens to become even worse.
If you’ve spent any time at all on this board you’ve seen that a dozen different people can have a dozen different interpretations about almost anything. The thought never crossed my mind that this thread would draw more sniping…especially since it’s forbidden in this forum.
That’s fine. We’re all entitled to our own opinion.
Maybe it was. We’ll see. But it seemed to me the best way to try to short-circuit what promises to be a board change that is going to lead to a lot of trouble for everyone but the relative few who want to be the source of that trouble. Plus I saw nothing to be gained at all by remaining quiet and letting the shit storm begin.
I’m no SA, fan but if people are going to snark him, he should be allowed to snark back. That would be fucked up to not allow him to do so. As long as it’s in the Pit of course.
I agree that this thread is a very bad idea and makes it appear - whether intentionally or not - that you are seeking out the very attention you claim to wish to avoid.
The rule as defined is not about you, Starving Artist. It is, instead, about not tolerating a culture of harassment on the SDMB for anyone. While the current definition may have been spurred by something in which you were involved it is much larger than you.
While posters have to stand by their posts - and you and everyone else does, that’s why we have a timer on the edit window - chasing others around in an attempt to ruin their credibility is poor form and is discouraged.
Imagine this scenario:
Thread on current new movie:
Poster A: I liked new movie!
Poster B: But in another thread you said you were a nose picker! Who cares what your opinion is?
That’s an attempt to denigrate and invalidate another’s opinion. Especially if it becomes a widespread thing. Very poor form, indeed.
However, threads on topic it might well be relevant to bring up nose picking. God knows, we have grosser threads on a regular basis. Context and relevancy are important.
And, of course, the rules are different in the BBQ Pit. Everyone wants to flame away there, go right ahead provided you stick to the rules of the forum. Should you have specific questions about the rules of that forum I suggest you take it up with Miller via PM.
Although the thread has been closed, since I’m being cited here, I’m going to give a clarification. To the best of my recollection it has never been prohibited to bring up the paper towel tube issue in the Pit, regardless of the subject of the thread. And you are not prohibited from attempting to defend yourself in the Pit. And the reason has never been that the subject of child rape was upsetting. (I’m not even sure where you got that idea from.)
As Jonathan has said, there is no specific rule about this issue. It simply comes under the general “no harassment” policy we have. People should not have to deal with people taking pot shots at them for what they said in unrelated threads outside the Pit. However, since the purpose of the Pit is to allow people to insult one another, normal restrictions don’t apply. (Miller of course is the arbiter of what’s allowed and not allowed in the Pit.)
And as Jonathan notes, there is not a general prohibition about bringing up the term or the issue outside the Pit. In a thread on Paterno or child molestation in another forum, it might be allowable. In such a case, defense would be permitted. However, a lot would depend on context. (This should also not be considered a blanket permission for people to bring it up in any thread with some tangential relationship.)
If you see the term used outside the Pit, as before, you should report the post and allow the mods to judge whether it is appropriate or not.
This so-called “rule” was never intended to protect you specifically. It’s just an instance of a more general rule.