That would certainly be preferable to the current ambiguity, and, given that you will not rescind the rule, seems like the best option at the moment.
That’s one of the stupider things I’ve read on the SDMB. When one calls one’s fellow Doper a “dick”, it’s not sexual. I’m not sure why it’s even an insult, but it is; in modern culture it’s a generic insult similar to, and almost as mild, as “jerk”.
Isn’t it cute that Ed apparently doesn’t think there is anything sexual about an asshole?
So the sexual aspect is the deciding factor? Calling someone an asshole, preferrably with some colourful adjectives added in somewhere is ok, but inviting a poster to “make tender, slobbering oral love to my perineum” would be unacceptable?
It’s still an incredible amount of work for you, and in my opinion this “sexual/non-sexual” distinction is arbitrary and non-sensical, and going nowhere fast (may I say “don’t be a tit”? That’s incredibly mild to my mind, yet falls thoroughly foul of this latest standard). As others have noted, you appear to be merely codifying your personal ranking of offence, which while obviously making perfect sense to you, is directly accessible to no-one else. I find it inexplicable that “dick” is ranked more offensive than “asshole,” and I’m clearly not alone. How many more such misunderstandings are there going to be? Are you really able to police the content of the Pit to this extent? No. You need users’ collaboration in adhering to standards. And for that we need to know what’s what without asking you.
My proposal (suggested to Lynn in the other thread) was:
[ul][li]No posts consisting entirely or almost entirely of abuse[/li][li]A small list of absolute no-no words (cunt, etc.).[/ul][/li]I think that would take care of your apparent problem with gratuitousness while simultaneously being comprehensible independent of a laundry list of decisions. It sounded to me earlier as if your main concern was posters resorting solely to abuse. Well, that’s clearly dealt with by the first rule; if you’re just insulting someone, whether creatively or not, that’s out. The second bit takes care of any specific words you find beyond the pale. I would strongly recommend keeping the banned word list as small as possible, however, as the more you add to it, the more inconsistencies you will introduce.
I still don’t think this is a particularly necessary rule, but it’s something you can implement without having to exhaustively categorise your personal morality of language. Certainly, some things you believe to be excessive will end up being permitted, but is that really so big a deal? You don’t want to spend your life conveying this rule to us, and that’s the way you’re headed.
If you think “asshole” isn’t sexual, you aren’t using it right.
Yes, we need a list of disallowed words, because it doesn’t make any sense by any objective standard. We need a list of words we aren’t allowed to direct at other posters, and a list of words we’re not able to use at all. Can we use the verb, noun, adjective, adverb forms?
Can I call someone a boob? It has sexual connotations, after all.
I’ve generally been supportive of the admins and mods, but this is the most ill-conceived rule ever instituted here.
Ed, I applaud you for remaining open to rewriting the rule to be more clear and enforceable. I think that the majority of the opposition is due to the fact that as currently written it’s as clear as mud what is and is not within the rules, and it seems that quite a few posts which would technically run afoul of it as currently written will not be admonished, which seems to point toward a fair amount of potential capriciousness.
Given that this whole thing started when Euthanasiast told Lynn to go fuck herself for saying his thread title was trolling in the Planned Parenthood thread, it seems to me that the main issue is not so much what words are used, but when. Telling someone to go fuck themselves is not a particularly strong insult in a mutually heated exchange. However, when it comes out of the blue, it’s much stronger. Similarly, there was a situation a while back when TVeblen moved or locked someone’s thread and he called her a cunt. She was upset and taken aback not because she couldn’t bear to hear the word itself, but because the response was so disproportionate to the perceived wrong.
So, if I may suggest, rather than focusing on taboo words and phrases, try to write the rule to target this specific behavior. Not just toward admins or mods, but gratuitous and overly vulgar abuse directed at someone unprovoked. This is still highly subjective, but far closer to the “don’t be a jerk” standard that the rules were built around. Mind you, people still won’t love it, but at least most of them will get it, in my opinion. As written, not saying the f-word in certain ways just doesn’t make sense to people. If you want to blanket ban the harshest words like cunt, make that a separate rule.
Just my thoughts.
To everyone else in this thread: can I suggest that we focus only on specific questions and suggestions with a goal toward improving the rules in the Pit and save your anger, irritation or sarcasm for other threads? Even when only a few people are making those posts, they make it easier for the staff to view the whole thing as a bunch of irrational bitching and ignore the constructive parts.
I’m not telling you not to be pissed, I’m just asking that we pick a thread or two to speak calmly so as to hopefully open a dialogue and make some improvements.
Speaking only for myself, I’m open to a general rule or a list…either one will work (although I suspect that the general rule would be easier. You can’t underestimate the Teeming Millions and the prevalence of on-line thesauruses. 
One of these threads has someone who’s come up with a bunch of archaic ways to say the same words.) and the “hateful remarks” thing seems like reasonable “wiggle room” to cover the creative invective of the Teeming Millions.
That said I’m still getting lost at “dick” is sexual but “asshole” isn’t. Both are organs that can be used for sexual purposes or waste-elimination purposes…that, I guess, is what’s confusing me. Same with the ass/asshole distinction.
If you go with the general rule, could I suggest it be something like “No referring to people as body parts (human or otherwise), no scatological references, no insulting people’s grandmas.” (just for an example). Hell, you could even give examples and combine the list with the general rule.
I’m only speaking for myself here, but something in the format of the sample above the plus the “extremely hateful remarks” add-on to cover the occasional “I hope your child gets cancer and suffers terrible brain damage, leaving you to deal with her drooling shell of a body for the next 30 years” unanticipated style of invective would certainly clarify things for me personally. What bothers me about the current rule’s wording is I really don’t understand it (I really was certain that “dick” was ok) and not understanding a rule frustrates the hell out of me ;). Either solution you’ve proposed would go a long way to helping resolve that confusion.
I still think that Rule #2 is a mistake, but I understand that that’s the decision you’ve made and appreciate that you’re open to discuss ways to make it less problematic.
Thanks for listening
ETA: one sentence and fix a spelling error
Bolding mine.
So I can say things as long as they don’t make me gasp? That’s the most logical interpretation I get from what you said here, since I have no idea what makes you gasp. To be honest, I take abuse every day that is far beyond what would probably make you gasp, so my “gasp meter” is probably out of whack. (And I’m using the word “whack” in a purely non-sexual way here.)
Here’s my suggestion: reinstate Giraffe as the Pit mod. He was one of the best mods this board ever had. If anyone knows a way to make the Pit a more “civil” place without losing everything about it that makes the place special, Giraffe is it.
Why didn’t Ed take Giraffe’s objections more seriously? Not exactly a brilliant move.
I second this, if Giraffe is willing, of course.
Giraffe is in the best position to know all the various ways the new rules can be played out. That experience would be useful here.
How about a filter that turns fuck into f*** and asshole into a****** or something like that? It’s dumb as f***, sure, but that way no one actually sees the bad words and Ed or another admin can edit the list to make changes or additions. I’m a g** d*** genius.
Can’t call somebody a dick? Srsly? The pit is now officially milder than The Gilmore Girls. “Dick” was definitely uttered as an epithet on that (WB) network show, and there was an episode entitled, “Die, Jerk, Die”. Milder than a mother-daughter network drama? Kittens weep.
Ooooh, a fun new game! I think of a Bad Word and you have to guess what it is!
Watching this unfold promises hours of hilarity. Let’s see, ‘dick’ is definitely sexual so that’s right out but ‘asshole’ isn’t. Wait, wait, it carries unfortunate connotations like ‘anal’ and ‘butthurt’, and oh dearie me, all those coy jokes about ‘rim shots’. We all know what they’re really talking about, the filthy beasts.
Great rebranding, guys. Hey, have I mentioned how much I like Slug’s tasteful cartoon on the front page, the one with the hairy naked guy pissing blood? (And captioned about pissing blood too, though presumably from a tastefully unspecified nether orifice–and not one adjacent to any nasty sexual uses either, so there.) Because heaven knows Cecil and Slug both exemplify refined, elevated taste and they’ll surely attract hordes of roaming Ladies Home Journal and Cute Overload fans.
Glad to know all this was thought out so thoroughly in advance. We don’t search inside…um, examine ourselves closely…ulp…CONSIDER nearly often enough burning questions like, “Is comment vulgar or even (gasp!) sexual?!” I await breathlessly the Official Straight Dope List of Bad Words.
Heh, good spot; the list of recent questions is utterly brilliant in this context:
I make that 11/15 with sexual or sex organ related content; certainly no-one finding that front page enticing is likely to be offended by the word “dick”. I hope that noting this can still be taken as constructive, incidentally - it’s a further illustration that the new standard really doesn’t have a grounding in the rest of the site’s ethos.
I really appreciate the kind words, but don’t forget that I’m the one who quit. It wasn’t a power play to try to force Ed to do things differently, I just know myself and knew I wouldn’t be a good mod for the changes Ed wants to make.
Besides, the SDMB has been as successful as it has because the rules were written to be enforceable by any fair-minded person. I think the best path forward is to try to continue that by modifying the proposed rules to be clearer and easier to apply consistently.
I agree with you that this needs to be self-enforcing, and yeah, the only way to do that is to have a list. We’ll start one over the weekend and I’ll amend the rules accordingly. Yes, it will be short. As for your first point, that would be tough to enforce. If a post consists in its entirety of, “You’re an idiot,” some will think that violates the rule.
One thing I’ll think we’ll put in the rules is something about “exceptionally vicious, hateful, or shocking remarks.” One of those things you’d invoke maybe once a year.
I see. You liked the Pit as it was and fundamentally didn’t agree with trying to sanitize it.
Exactly how I feel.