This is something that actually has concerned me for some time.
Do you have to respond to something in the Pit? Especially if it is directed at you specifically in some way?
I never post in the Pit and probably never will. But what if someone, for example, made a false or even exaggerated charge about me in the Pit? What do I do then?
BTW, I sometimes read stuff in the Pit. But I don’t post there. Sorry.
Same thing you’d do in any other category, I suppose.
Not aware that you were required to respond to anything or anyone, but I suppose if you wanted to, it’d be better within the same thread rather than starting a new one in MPSIMS or something.
I am not a mod, etc.
Sometimes angry, aggressive questions, which are all too common, are best not answered.
It is kinda weird here- most of us are knda liberal or libertarian. So in some threads, like in GD, there really isnt anyone debating the other side, so one can get “attacked” by a series of angry, aggressive questions just because one drops a fact in.
For example, let us say someone starts showing how bad Nazi Germany was, and includes a line like “and those SS in their bright red uniforms, they were sadistic goons…” and one responds “Of course the nazis were total scum, but the SS wore black uniforms, not red.”’ One is likely to get several angry, aggressive “questions” along the lines of “dont you know the Nazis has gas chambers to kill the Jews!?!” since all they see is that you disagreed with them on some minor point, thus you MUST be pro-nazi.
However, in GD, a question asking for a cite should be responded to.
Unless you are specifically mentioned with an @ symbol, the only way you’ll know is because someone calls your attention to the mention.
When we moved to Discourse, I muted the Pit. I don’t miss it.
If the Internet is wrong about anything - and we know it’s wrong about most things - it’s the idea that one MUST respond to inflammatory rhetoric. One does not.
Whether in the Pit or the less full-contact fora on the SDMB you do not owe anyone an answer to a question or even the smallest iota of your time. I’ve frequently gotten reports in GD that state - in essence - “Poster X is ignoring my questions!” That may be poor debate tactics but it’s a perfectly valid approach to internet life.
I’m puzzled by the OP’s question. How can anyone here be required to do anything, i.e., to be pro-active in any way ever? You can get a mod comment or even be banned (ultimately) for DOING something. But there is no requirement to DO anything. And anyhow, there would be no way to enforce such a requirement. You’re not even ever required to post anything. People lurk for years and never post.
And if someone calls you out, the best revenge is to ignore them. Hehe.
Not in the Pit, but I’ve seen people be mod-noted (maybe even warned) for not responding to good faith questions about someone’s (likely disingenuous) post in Great Debates. So, in Great Debates, if you post crap and people call you on it, and you continue to post crap without responding, you could be sanctioned for not responding.
That wouldn’t be the case in the Pit, of course.
There is absolutely no obligation to reply to anything in the Pit.
Can’t even require people to READ the Pit.
Wow. I had absolutely no idea this happens.
Now, this: “if you post crap and people call you on it, and you continue to post crap without responding” makes sense to me.
What is a sanction here? Tariffs for posting in the Pit? Suspension of posting privileges for a period of time? Prohibition of participating in the Marketplace?
Please provide a cite for your statement.
A link to a warning by a mod in a great debates thread will be sufficient.
Mod notes and warnings for not following instructions, threats to close the thread. It was back when the mods started cracking down on sea-lioning. I’m not all that interested in trying to track down a moderator instruction from a year ago.
It really comes down to whether we think they’re trolling.
I recall one time - years ago - where a poster was repeatedly insisting in a same sex marriage thread that there was a possibility he could marry his dishwasher. He didn’t respond to refutations but returned to that point often enough that I told him it was out of bounds and if I saw him again he would be warned.
But note; that’s debating in bad faith. Just not answering a question isn’t indicative of such. Repeatedly not answer refutations and discussions of one’s statements could be.
And, more generally, there are situations where it’s just good manners to respond to things that people have posted in reponse to something you’ve said/asked, in the same thread where you said it. But that’s not what the OP of this thread is talking about.
If people post nonsense in GQ, and continue to post it even after it has been refuted by other posters, I many instruct them to either provide factual support for their statements or discontinue posting in the thread. But that has nothing to do with the OP.
I’m in here to tell you not answering hate crap is the best way to deal with it.
The few times I’ve found myself in a pickle here on the SD, I’ve taken the advice to just cease and desist.
People still carried on for a while, but I stood firm. In the end it was better than tossing insults and getting myself modded.
The most common BS tactic here is to put words in someone’s mouth via “Are you saying…?”
Just don’t take the bait.
I recall one time - years ago - where a poster was repeatedly insisting in a same sex marriage thread that there was a possibility he could marry his dishwasher. He didn’t respond to refutations but returned to that point often enough that I told him it was out of bounds and if I saw him again he would be warned.
But note; that’s debating in bad faith.
That did not actually happen and you are misrepresenting that poster.
The poster didn’t argue that he could marry his dishwasher. He argued that the same arguments which were being used to require recognition of SSM should also logically be used to require recognition of marriage to inanimate objects such as dishwashers, to people who felt that way.
What happened wasn’t that he “didn’t respond to refutations”; he actually responded repeatedly and at length. Rather, what happened is that many posters who were strongly in favor of SSM objected to the notion that this could be compared to marrying dishwashers, and declared that their counterarguments amounted to refutations that the poster had failed to acknowledge. It’s frequently the case that people believe they’ve “refuted” their debate opponents while the debate opponents disagree with this, but in this case, those maintaining that view had the majority on their side and sympathetic moderation.
The point of all this is that an assessment whether someone is “debating in good faith” can be highly subjective, and is highly dependent on one’s view of the underlying issue.
[For some reason I can’t link to the original thread - there’s a follow-up thread here but the link to the original doesn’t work.]
Gawd, I hate that.
Post: “I disagree with my Congressman, who is pro-life.”
Bullshit Response: “Single-issue voters like you make me sick. You don’t care about black lives, or the environment, or Chinese dictatorship, just only your one single oh-so-holy grail of abortion rights.”
Mega-huh? That wasn’t what was said at all! And, damn, it sure happens here a LOT.
(Bracing myself for inevitable parody… 
)
I was gonna take the bait…but then i got confused