# Opinions sought on Pit rules **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442 "2005-06-29T23:59:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/81 "2005-06-30T11:22:06Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > When someone is trolling, it is almost always: a) obvious; and b) a pretty narrowly defined activity. If posters were accusing others of trolling when they were doing nothing of the sort, I have no doubt others would take him/her to task for it rather than playing up to the ad populum fallacy. If you’ve ever been on the shit end of a pile-on, then you’d know better. If you haven’t, then you simply don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/82 "2005-06-30T12:31:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If you’ve ever been on the shit end of a pile-on, then you’d know better. If you haven’t, then you simply don’t know. Sure, I’ve been on the shit end of a pile-on. It’s _de rigeur_ for anyone who’s started a thread in the Pit within the last year or so. Maybe I’m just too optimistic, but I really do think that with something with such a specific meaning as trolling, a pile-on wouldn’t ensue unless the person actually _was_ trolling. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/83 "2005-06-30T14:45:29Z")
How about new rule–“Cite requests must be filled whenever possible, no matter the forum.”–just for **DrDeth**? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/84 "2005-06-30T14:50:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I agree. I don’t think there is a taboo against using the word. Example: Ann Coulter is troll. But how could you use it in reference to a poster without implying that they are breaking the rules? Use it in the way that **Gaudere** has established: call the post a troll but not the poster. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/85 "2005-06-30T15:13:17Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > …Take for example the prohibition on calling someone a troll. It was started to keep junior mod squads from trying to identify and out suspected trolls. \*\* It has evolved into a taboo word, which posters sometimes take elaborate contortions to say without really saying. There’s clearly some confusion about the purpose and execution of the current rule.\*\* I would argue that _so long as it is used outside of an accusation of rule breaking_, it is a harmless word. > > \ > > What do you think? Would this be a desirable change, i.e. one less thing to worry about getting warned for? Does anyone have any other suggestions for changes to the rules, either in the Pit or on the board in general? > > Note that if this rule was changed it would only apply to the Pit, as calling someone a troll in other forums is just as inappropriate as calling them a jerk. Also note that while we strive for consistency, there’s always going to be some ambiguity in the rules. We have no desire to formulate a legalistic criminal code – judgement calls will sometimes have to be made. Keep that in mind. > > I’d like to hear people’s thoughts. (bolding mine) I’d argue that you already have – tacitly made the rule change that is. For you’ve explicitly allowed the use of [DNFTTwit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6207111&postcount=277). And what I said then, I say now: that is essentially a distinction without a difference. Do I have a problem with an offical change to allow the disingenous three letters (w-i-t) to disappear? Nope, none at all. Quite the contrary in fact. I think the way it stands now it’s hypocritical as all get-out and it annoyed the shit out of me that you allowed the weasely technicality through in the first place. Right a wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/86 "2005-06-30T15:21:20Z")
I never would have known there was a ban on calling somebody a troll. So many people mask it in context, it’s practically allowed anyway. I’ve seen the DNFTT anacronyms, the “Been fighting billy goats, I see” allegations, the bogusly innocent “IANAM, but this is trying to elicit a response by stirring up emotions” and so on. You can put a clamp on the word all you want to, but it’s not going to make the intent go away. Call a spade a spade, so to speak. People may not break the letter of the law, but they will the spirit. ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/87 "2005-06-30T15:34:42Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > But precedents can be misconstrued and sometimes even mods make bad decisions. I’m just wary of posters digging up stuff a mod posted five years ago and saying 'Ah-hah! Gotcha! Poster Z was warned for talking about this, and you’re going to get warned too!" Couldn’t someone do that already? All they’d have to do is use the “flag this post” button to send it to the mods and make the 'Ah-hah! Gotcha! Poster Z was warned for talking about this, and you’re going to get warned too!" post. I don’t see how a taboo on the word “troll” prevents this behavior. Besides, anyone who did that would likely get reamed by other posters and/or the mods, so it wouldn’t last very long. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/88 "2005-06-30T15:35:09Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I’d argue that you already have – tacitly made the rule change that is. > > For you’ve explicitly allowed the use of [DNFTTwit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6207111&postcount=277). And what I said then, I say now: that is essentially a distinction without a difference. > > Do I have a problem with an offical change to allow the disingenous three letters (w-i-t) to disappear? Nope, none at all. Quite the contrary in fact. I think the way it stands now it’s hypocritical as all get-out and it annoyed the shit out of me that you allowed the weasely technicality through in the first place. > > Right a wrong. Wheee, I like this dance. DNFTTwit is stating that someone’s too damn stupid to be bothered with, there’s no real statement of intent only intelligence. DNFTT is stating that someone is here to cause problems, stir up shit, and gets off on making people angry and fight. They’re similar in that they’re telling people not to post to someone, but they’re not similar in that trolling will get you banned, but being a moron will get you elected President. I couldn’t resist. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/89 "2005-06-30T15:38:32Z")
> [@inkleberry](#): > > Couldn’t someone do that already? All they’d have to do is use the “flag this post” button to send it to the mods and make the 'Ah-hah! Gotcha! Poster Z was warned for talking about this, and you’re going to get warned too!" post. I don’t see how a taboo on the word “troll” prevents this behavior. Agreed, but I’d like to see that behavior prohibited too. Although, of course, there’s grey area. I think tone plays a huge part. And though IANAM may seem to be mere hand waving, I think it does help set the tone of a post. “The mods sometimes take a dim view of file sharing posts, just FYI, but IANAM so who knows.” “Jeez you dumb NooB, you’re not allowed to post about that, you’re soooo going to get banned real quick.” > [@inkleberry](#): > > Besides, anyone who did that would likely get reamed by other posters and/or the mods, so it wouldn’t last very long. Maybe… I’ve seen it happen without any counter claims made by regulars. Maybe they were hitting ‘report post’ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/90 "2005-06-30T15:53:30Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wheee, I like this dance. > DNFTTwit is stating that someone’s too damn stupid to be bothered with, there’s no real statement of intent only intelligence. > DNFTT is stating that someone is here to cause problems, stir up shit, and gets off on making people angry and fight. > > They’re similar in that they’re telling people not to post to someone, but they’re not similar in that trolling will get you banned, but being a moron will get you elected President. I couldn’t resist. Again, that you choose to interpret it that way, does not mean that everyone else sees it that way. In fact, in the linked thread others saw it precisely as I did. Namely a way to sideskirt the troll rule. What do you NOT FEED a troll/twit etc.? Posts. Matters little what you change the name to, implication remains the same. Namely that they should be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/91 "2005-06-30T16:31:53Z")
But we’re allowed to say someone shouldn’t be spoken to, right? “He’s just a partisan shill, you’re not going to get a good argument out of 'im, just Fox talking points.” Yes, the implication is the same, that they should be ignored. But that implication is well within the rules. Definitely in the Pit, maybe even in other forums if it’s phrased right. The implication of someone being a worthless contributor isn’t verboten, accusations of being a troll are. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/92 "2005-06-30T16:31:54Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > What do you NOT FEED a troll/twit etc.? Posts. Matters little what you change the name to, implication remains the same. Namely that they should be ignored. Not at all. Being a troll is a bannable offense, being a twit is not (fortunately for many). ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/93 "2005-06-30T16:51:14Z")
Another vote against the “No Joke Thread” rule. There have been too many good threads that would be considered too racy for MIPSIMS and too jokey for the PIT under the current rules. Either allow more rudeness in MIPSIMS allow jokes in the PIT or lose some possibly great threads. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/94 "2005-06-30T17:08:50Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I think the way it stands now it’s hypocritical as all get-out and it annoyed the shit out of me that you allowed the weasely technicality through in the first place. The situation you linked to is a perfect example of a taboo being taken too far, IMO. You interpret it as a veiled accusation of trolling, I interpret it as a play on words which was within the rules. There have been many other similarly borderline cases which have not drawn warnings. And if DNFTTwit is an accusation of trolling, what about offering the opinion that another poster is inflammatory and disingenuous? After all, trolls are inflammatory and disingenuous, making it closer to an accusation of trolling than replacing the word Troll with the word Twit in an acronym. Take this too far and one wouldn’t be able to pit a dishonest debater at all without fear of getting warned for implying they’re a troll. As for my originally suggested rule, I see now that it is impractical to try to distinguish junior modding from straight-up criticism, so it looks like it would have to be all or nothing. Very useful comments, keep 'em coming. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/95 "2005-06-30T17:25:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > But we’re allowed to say someone shouldn’t be spoken to, right? “He’s just a partisan shill, you’re not going to get a good argument out of 'im, just Fox talking points.” > > Yes, the implication is the same, that they should be ignored. But that implication is well within the rules. Definitely in the Pit, maybe even in other forums if it’s phrased right. The implication of someone being a worthless contributor isn’t verboten, accusations of being a troll are. **Finn** , I understand you point, just not sure you understand mine. Since that acronym was allowed, I have used it ONLY as a “witticism” to sideskirt the troll rules in the times I’ve wanted to imply as much. Which, again, is in the _spirit I originally read_ as posted by Shodan. Now, surely you won’t deny me my own interpretation of same? Point being, it remains a matter of _interpretation_ and not one of right and wrong. On preview: Yes, pretty much agree with **Giraffe** , _this time around_. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/96 "2005-06-30T17:59:44Z")
**RedFury** , you’re making my brain hurt. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/97 "2005-06-30T18:47:44Z")
Three things - [ul][li]I would like to see the rule against troll accusations retained. For all the reasons mentioned in this thread. [_]I would like to see the rule extended, so that questions like “Why hasn’t **so-and-so** been banned yet?” are also verboten. Especially, I would like to see comparisons of any poster with **december** banned. If all rules are going to be dropped, I would suggest another forum to be added, if possible. [_]I would like to see the rule against joke thread dropped altogether. Some of the wittiest and most entertaining threads I ever read came from semi-fake Pittings - witness the “Open Letter to My Pets” thread that I can’t find, and the Bunny-Weasel thread linked to above.[/ul]OK, four things. [del]Among our chief tactics are such diverse…[/del] [ul]I was the one who came up with the DNFTTwit thing. I was wrong. It lends itself too easily to abuse. I appreciate the swiftness of **Giraffe** ’s ruling, but I will commit not to use the phrase again. And I apologize to **RedFury** for doing so. [/ul][/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/98 "2005-06-30T18:52:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > TI was the one who came up with the DNFTTwit thing. I was wrong. It lends itself too easily to abuse. I appreciate the swiftness of **Giraffe** ’s ruling, but I will commit not to use the phrase again. And I apologize to **RedFury** for doing so. [/list] To be fair, I think I used DNFTMoron a short while before your phrase. Yours was more clever though ☹ **RedFury** I grok. I understand that it’s open to misuse, and that sometimes it can be used to get around the rules. But I think it’s also got a perfectly valid function. I’d rather see it still be allowed and have mods decide on a case by case basis, but if it’s too difficult for them, then yes, just ban the use of that acronym. We can always find other ways of suggesting that someone’s too dumb for Doper discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/99 "2005-06-30T18:52:20Z")
Since you’re soliciting opinions, I think the rule should stay as it is. It is an effective prophylactic measure to prevent annoying whine-fests over whether someone was appropriately called a troll. ---
**Author:** ![ioioio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ioioio/32/316_2.png) [@ioioio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ioioio)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442/100 "2005-06-30T19:04:39Z")
Recently I saw a rule somewhere (if indeed it’s a rule – if not, let me know) that we are not supposed to say derogatory things about people who have been banned, since they are no longer around to defend themselves. I think this is ridiculous – if someone has been a big enough jerk to get banned, then screw 'em. It’s enough that we aren’t allowed to wish death on them 😛 . Seriously, some bannings give rise to a lot of emotions on the Board, and I think it’s healthy for us to be able to talk our way through it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinions-sought-on-pit-rules/310442.md?page=6)