My only objection would be that I think mods should be Pittable, just not for doing their jobs. If a Mod posts a grand OP entitled “I Converted! The Moon Landing Really Was a Hoax! Here’s 500 Reasons Why” (as unlikely as this may be), a Pitting may well be in order. Further, mods shouldn’t be restricted from participating in pit threads - we’ve always been held to a standard of holding back a bit, but please don’t take my precious snark away, even if it’s a right I seldom exercise. 
Within the hypothetical rules suggested by Loach:
How about “mods can be pitted for posts they make as posters (covering the “I converted! The moon landing really was a hoax” scenario), but not for ‘moderator actions’”? This would also eliminate the corresponding need for mods to be prohibited from posting in the Pit.
I think mods should be Pittable for anything, including their mod decisions.
I don’t think posters have a right to sling abuse at mod in the same thread where the official action was taken. First, it hijacks the thread something fierce and is unfair to the OP. Second, it’s no different than someone yelling “Fuck you, cunt!” at a service worker. Anyone who spews filth at my staff is immediately told to leave for the day. They can leave all by themselves or they can leave with the police but either way they will knock it right the hell off.
I don’t think mods should be above Pitting though. Being accountable, and being seen as accountable, is also part of the job.
Extending the example from real life, anybody can be kicked out for abusing staff and causing an ugly ruckus on the public floor. But people can (and often do) write seething letters or comments forms, telling their side. And the telephone calls, oh my sweet lord, the phone calls. Most are pure garbage but some raise very legitimate points. Sometimes policies cause more problems than they solve; nasty unintended consequences, and staff just catch flak for enforcing them. And sometimes the staff person was rude and unhelpful. That doesn’t justify pitching a loud hissy fit but sometimes a complainer is right.
I didn’t mind being Pitted, and even if I had, it was still part of the job. Several times my mod actions were just plain wrong. No two ways about it; I blew it. Humans make mistakes and mods aren’t mysteriously blessed. So if an apology is owed, just apologize already. No biggee. It’s not very comfortable but it’s not fatal. It doesn’t erode authority or tarnish stature or any of the nonsense either.
IMO anyone who can’t handle criticism isn’t cut out for the job.
P.S. Life is much easier when you don’t mount high horses in the first place.
Congratulations, we seem to be getting somewhere!
I like Loach’s rules 1 and 4. I’d suggest a modification of 2 and 3.
I’ll repeat my suggestion (some earlier thread somewhere) that mods should have a mod sock, and a poster sock. This will prevent unfortunate perceptions of crossover between mod actions and hurt feelings by posters (“He’s just Warning me now because I blasted his stupid post about [some issue]”). The mod sock would be used for all official actions, and the poster sock for-- well, duh! for posting. In any forum, including the pit.
Mod actions (even stupid ones) should not be pitted, but could be blasted without personal invective in ATMB. After all, if a mod’s stupid mod action cannot be criticized rationally, it cannot be corrected nor can it serve as an example for the future. Venom only obscures this.
Oh, and if there really is to be a “(Seven?) Words You Can’t Say on the SDMB” list, please, please make it a short one. George is already starting to rotate in his grave. If it gets much worse we may as well hook him up to a generator and get something useful out of all this silliness.
I don’t actually like what I proposed but I can live with it. Due to what has happened recently in the Pit I would have to assume some or most of this has come from pits of mods/admins. I could live with a small number of posters who are immune from pits. Just as long as they do nothing to instigate such as join in on pits of others. If the pit offends some people they can stay away. The administration can’t. Its a compromise that I think we can live with. The volunteer staff is immune from insults and abuse and the rest of us aren’t walking a tightrope of rules. I can live with the small chance that one of the mods becomes a moon-hoaxer.
:D:D:D
For clarification, are words on the “forbidden” list unable to be used in any thread titles, period? I can understand them not being used as insults, but being unable to ask “Why is the word “cunt” offensive?” strikes me as being a taaad over-protective. Having to address it as “Why is the “C word” offensive?” strikes me as ridiculously juvenile.
What’s the dope on this?
Or you could stop policing us and give us the option (in our preferences) to filter out strings of words. You could even provide a default list of words that violate your sensibilities. I personally have no such list but you presumably consider me a boor.
Quite similar to Google Safe Search which filters porn from your results by default but allows you to see the dicks and assholes if you are so interested.
Technological solutions are always better. Had you really commissioned the fixing of the server infrastructure (and not just given a pretend order) you could have a heyday implementing your arbitrary policies using various vBulletin extensions. They’ve already solved pretty much every problem you can come up with from your armchair. “Think of the hamsters!”
You are most welcome. Although I think it lost its continuity (and therefore intended punch) once SkipMagic tried to merge the threads, he did his best.
Ah, no matter. At least TWO of us thought it was funny! 
Stink Fish Pot
Charter Ass
ETA: since this thread appears to be turning into a rational discussion of Pit rule massaging, my small effort could be part of the ages!
[sub]then again, it probably won’t[/sub]
I just realized in reading your reply that I got your name wrong. Maybe I’d better just call you Stinky from now on! How’s that?
ETA: It’s too bad you’re just a guest. If you were a member, I could call you Stinky Asshole!
This is so funny. I was just telling a 7 year old yesterday that there are no bad words. Just words that generate different reactions, some of them very negative. If you are prepared to accept the reaction the words generate you are free to use any of them, or so I told him.
I guess I won’t direct him here as I’d prove myself a liar.
I understand the “no profanity in thread titles” rule is a way of helping people who want to visit the forums at work.
IMO it should apply in all forums (especially GQ, as it is a resource that would be useful to people at work), in which case you would have to ask “Why is the C-word offensive?” to stay within the rules. I’m not sure about using the word in a discursive context in GQ but I think it would be OK.
But banning a few select words isn’t going to make the SDMB any more work safe…how many threads have we had on various sex related issues, that offer explicit details in the subject alone, without the use of any soon-to-be banned words?
Can’t you just make the board censor words like “cunt” automatically? I believe this is a standard feature of vBulletin.
That way, no one even has to worry about whether they’re violating the rule. If it’s not blocked by the autocensor, you’re good. If it is blocked, you’re still good. If you are creative enough to think of a word that the moderators think should be banned, but isn’t, they can just add it to the list.
Of course, this would block all uses of “cunt”, not just those directed at other posters – but a lot of people have been saying that if the point is to “clean up the board”, it doesn’t really make sense to ban the word when directed at posters but not when directed at others. (Plus, there’s the whole ambiguity of talking about groups that obviously include posters, e.g. “All Democrats are cunts.”)
Ok, maybe I’m a doof but I’ve been reading all the threads and hate the new rules as much as anyone, and finally found this post. I’m sure I’m a doof and others have seen this before, but it really explains the whole situation:
ED:
Given this I think the Pit as we know it is gone forever and possibly so is the dope.
That’s pretty damn funny!
link to that post please
Since your thread doesn’t differ much from any of the others we already have going on, sinjin, I’ve merged it with an existing thread.
We should have seen it coming, actually. When the alternatives went square, the free-wheeling atmosphere had to stop. Welcome to corporate America, Lowest Common Denominator Land.
You may or may not believe the following, but it’s the truth: I like the Pit the way it is. I needed to get it off the dime on a few small points, but that having been done, I think what we’ve got works and I’ll do my best to defend it. The thing to remember is, this is a business and there are commercial considerations. Cecil tackles a lot of sex questions and I’d vigorously resist any attempt by the business side to suggest that he couldn’t - and in all my years of doing this, no such attempt has ever been made. That doesn’t mean I necessarily want to have all the sex questions showing up on the home page at once, as inadvertently happened last week. (As I’ve explained elsewhere, we were cycling through the classics again, and we ran into the sex chapter of the first Straight Dope book.) It complicates life unnecessarily for the ad guys. So we’re mixing things up. Does that mean we’re self-censoring? Not at all. The Straight Dope is what it is, and nobody here has any interest in changing it. That doesn’t mean I want to rub people’s faces in it.
The Pit is the same way. I like it for the same reasons everybody else likes it. But for obvious reasons it’s something I’d just as soon not have too high profile. That’s the reason I put in the rule about no obscenities in thread titles. In contrast to some of the other changes, that one was commercially motivated - I wanted to push some of the more raucous stuff one click further down. Will it make any difference? How the hell do I know? But I figure no sense taking chances to no purpose. I understand some people are unhappy with what I’m doing here, but there’s a method to it. I’m not making radical changes. In part, that’s what I’m trying to *avoid. *