The point of his apology wouldn’t be to please or molify you, either.
To clarify: your un/willingness to accept his apology is utterly irrelevant.
Cool!
Good man/woman/dog. Buy yourself a beer, and consider it’s on me.
Thank you very much Miller!
Shodan-If your apology to margin is sincere, I thank you too.
Well done, Shodan (to give credit where it’s due). Twenty years ago, that would have gotten you called “a class act.”
ETA: good call, Miller.
Miller-And yes, I did mean “uptake.” Got me!
Thanks again!
Thank you.
I generally agree it would be very challenging to craft such a rule concerning insults. However, there is a very clear distinction between insults and accusing another poster of specific criminal activity (e.g., pedophilia) without offering any evidence whatsoever to support it. I can think of no valid excuse, justification or even rationalization for allowing such posts. Note that there is also a line between referencing (e.g., in the form of an insult) criminal activity in connection with a poster and making a specific accusation of a crime without evidence. The latter has no place on this message board and should be subject to moderator sanction, imo.
Separately and more generally, as other posters have noted at one time or another, some of the most interesting discussions on this board occur in the Pit. Many of these discussions are as civil as the rest of the board. The problem is that the Pit also allows uncivil - and reprehensible - posts. The Pit is thus serving two functions at odds with one another. Given the ugliness which rears its head every so often in the Pit, its true nature is effectively being disguised/sanitized by the appearance of civil debate within it. This seems to me a design flaw.
I’m sure I haven’t thought this through well enough, but what if the Pit only had one thread reserved solely for pitting other posters and insult contests between posters. No other discussion would be allowed. Any topic outside those parameters that would normally go in the Pit would have to find a home elsewhere on the board and be subject to the usual rules. Would this encourage more civil debate? Would it make identification of posters incapable of civil debate easier?
It would preserve the “venting” function of the Pit, while eliminating its overlapping function, making the distinction between the rest of the board and the Pit more stark. Given the concentrated spewed bile that would be on display, no one who was truly interested in civil discourse would feel inclined to read the Pit or post there without cause. That is not the way things work now.
All this, of course, assumes the SDMB wants to encourage more civil discourse, in the absence of which adverse consequences (e.g., posters leaving) would seem to threaten the board as a whole.
Once again, we see evidence the Pit is toxic. I agree that trying to moderate how mean a person can be is a challenge. Allowing some insults inevitably leads to allowing all insults, or else drawing arbitrary lines.
The argument for it is the idea that somehow it serves as a “safety valve” allowing posters to vent their frustrations and then return to the civil parts of the board. But it doesn’t work that way. Instead, it causes complaints to fester and bad feelings to grow. And that doesn’t stay contained in the Pit. Just look at this thread, or any thread in ATMB about moderation. Every single one at some point has to admonish someone for insults. And how many are closed because they devolve into sniping matches?
This is not a coincidence, not an arbitrary result because emotions run high. It is the direct result of allowing a forum where anything goes and nastiness is encouraged.
But what about the ability to call out racists and sexists and homophobes, etc?
This is where I would argue for a revision to the interpretation of the rules such that calling out posts as racist or ideas as transphobic or comments as misogynist should be allowed across the board. Again, attack the idea, not the poster.
So, retain the Pit as a place for rants about life or the world, but do not allow insults of board members.
Look at it this way, dude. You’ve set high standards for yourself. You’re a victim of your own success, in a way.
Miller, thank you.
I hope some of the people who left are still reading.
Shodan, I’m not the one who gets to accept or reject your apology; but I’d be more impressed with it if it had come when objections were first made in the original thread, or when you posted in this thread yesterday, rather than after it became clear that you’d lost the argument.
Argument lost? Hmmm… That’s an interesting take on things. Bowing to public pressure and ignoring explicit clarification from an administrator is not really winning an argument. It’s making peace. 
Would you be willing to share with the rest of us how you, at this somewhat belated point, came to the conclusion that this apology was the right thing to do?
What changed from your initial responses to the criticism of your behavior to now?
Don’t get me wrong, better late than never, but still curious.
Regardless,
DSeid
Thank you, Miller.
Good call, Miller.
You folks who celebrate a contrived outcome because it sanctions an unpopular poster while ignoring clearly stated language that explicitly allows such behavior are missing the big picture. You know I get a lot of grief about support for unpleasant speech by unpleasant people but that’s because I understand that it’s important for a society that professes to desire procedure, rules, codes of conduct, regulations, etc in order to have predictability to actually have members that advocate for what is claimed to be desired. What you folks are actually asking for, and have achieved twice, is mob rule.
That’s a big ole nope.
no. we celebrate sanctions against a poster who is unpopular because he made his attacks personal.
you don’t have the right to free speech on someone else’s platform. your right to free speech is not being infringed just because the SDMB is no longer willing to host it. Freedom of speech means you can’t be arrested or silenced by the government. IT doesn’t mean anyone else has to host or tolerate your bullshit. If you get de-platformed, all that means is the rest of us think you’re an asshole, and we’re showing you the door.