Before implementing a “bland titles” idea, I do think we need to consider the downside: that thread titles will be less descriptive of their contents.
It seems the current proposal is to say "A pit thread for ". I see three potential downsides here: (1) not all Pit threads go after a specific poster, but more a trend of posts. (2) We can’t have duplicate titles, so you’d wind up with numbers or at least “Yet another Pit thread for __” or similar. (3) it wouldn’t be clear from the title what they are being pitted for, or whether or not it was worth your time to check in on.
I’m not saying these are showstoppers (though, to me, number 1 seems hard to resolve). But I do think they need to be discussed, along with any other potential issues.
My personal opinion is that having a polite title wouldn’t change much in how having that link below my post would feel. The main information being given is that I have been pitted for this post. (Well, unless they’re quoting my post for another reason, which you could hopefully tell by the title of the thread.)
Finally, I actually like the links for multi-poster threads like the trolling one, because it links me directly to the post that talks about that person, rather than having to read through the whole troll thread to see if someone said anything about that post. Well, in theory–in practice we often don’t directly link a troll post, so as not to notify them, lest they come in and start trolling the troll thread.
I wonder if that may be the better solution: don’t link the thread. Just include the URL without a link. Just put it on its own line, with
​ in front of it, like so: