Since you’re requesting opinions on Pit rules, I’d like to discuss multiple threads on the same or a similar topic. When former Prime Minister Foo Foo bites the big one and multiple threads grow like morning mushrooms, they are consolidated and/or closed. The same mod activity would take place regarding Paris Hilton’s latest terrible sex tape to hit the internet. Why is it such a leap to have the same logic applied to political threads? If interest has waned such that it dropped from page one, how is it permissible to start another on the same topic?
That post is “political trolling”. 
Actually, I like the idea. The only problem might be the lawyers, but I think Shakespear had the right idea… No, no no. Not wishing death on anyone. I meant “To be or not to be”.
Would hate speech cause a problem for the Reader?
IMHO, because there are often various angles to be taken with one political topic, and it’s better to start a new thread than hijack an existing one.
This depends on the poster. There are a few posters here who stir up plenty of emotions (I know. It’s hard to believe). What we will likely wind up with is those posters getting saddled with the label of “troll” regardless of whether or not they actually are trolls in the board illegal sense. When somebody gets banned for being a real troll, everybody will bring up their favorite troll and wonder why they weren’t banned instead. Hard feelings will abound.
It’s not altogether different from letting the fans of a sporting event vote on whether or not a penalty was commited. I’m sure there are fans smart enough to tell the difference. It’s just a question of whether they can be heard through the noise.
I have to say that I like the troll rule the way it is. It’s absolutely clear what it means, and I don’t see any value in calling someone a troll unless they’re actually trolling.
And of course, if it’s a legitimate accusation it should be reported to the moderators. That’s why they’re here. Well, that and we need somebody to wear the fascist label while they abuse us.
Admit it, we like the abuse.
Other than for the control of hate speech and activity subject to litigation or criminal conviction, I don’t see the need for any rules in the pit. Why don’t we try that for a while and see how it goes?
I’m all for the rule change as I understand it.
If you think that someone is being insincere or dishonest, why in Og’s name should you be prohibited from saying so. Allowing “Ape-raping coprophage” but not “liar” seems absurd to me.
I’m opposed to anarchy in the Pit. I’ve seen posters make false claims about their medical credentials and give really bad advice about the treatment of mental illness. That can be really dangerous when someone is impulsive and in need of immediate help.
But I have no objections to allowing the use of the word troll if it is allowed altogether. (Some of us aren’t good at making the subtle distinctions on how it can be used.) So I vote for all or nothing at all.
There really are times when I need for someone to nudge me and remind me not to feed the troll. Of course, it would annoy the hell out of me if I were expressing an honest opinion and someone said that about my post!
Hmmm. When someone makes accusations and cannot provide a cite for those accusations, I would like to be able to tell that poster that I believe I am being baited. That seems reasonable to me. But isn’t that essentially the same thing as calling that person a troll?
danceswithcats, if people are really through discussing a topic, there won’t be many responses and the subject will scroll off again naturally. If they don’t have it out of their systems yet, why not talk about it further? Why try to control the topics that others talk about?
I just wanted to drop back in and note that I’m still following the thread, but I don’t want to steer it too much. Keep the ideas and opinions coming!
I too think a pit free-for-all would not be a bad thing. The Pit and its Pitizens seems to be fairly self-regulating, and it’s a good pressure-valve for the rest of the Dope.
And I don’t think pit threads with good debates going on should get tossed out of the Pit. This is where the action is, man. Don’t make us go scrap with the eggheads and all their “Cite?” and “You have to back your opinions up with facts.”
Oh, as for the proposed rule change so people can call each other trolls but not accuse each other of trollery - doesn’t seem like a good thing. That’s a pretty fine nuance, wouldn’t you say?
Word.
I’m against the proposed change.
Pit denizens should be creative enough to come up with insults that don’t involve an accusation of rule-breaking.
To clarify: I think people should be allowed to accuse others of the sorts of behaviour associated with trolling, they just can’t use the word “troll” while doing so. Call them a “disingenuous intentionally provactive fuck” or something.
I’m following it as well (horrendous work schedule lately, and cable access problems) so silence doesn’t mean indifference. We don’t want to steer or bias the discussion, so keep those comments coming, foks.*
No one solution will satisfy every Doper 100% but we want to adapt this as well as possible.
Veb
- Except Giraffe. Could we speak for a minute? Now, about your example of me ripping loose in Great Debates…
Seeing as I post in the Pit about once a year, I’m sure you’ve been on the edge of your seat awaiting my opinion on this.
My first choice would be to ditch the rule altogether. People get called a lot of other things.
My second choice is to keep the rule the way it is. I’m not overly fond of the rule, but as fluiddruid points out, it does have the benefit of being absolutely clear.
I’m not keen on the rule change as presented in the OP. You can call people trolls in a certain context, but not others? I’m having visions of threads where someone calls someone else a troll, and then we have a three page discussion where everyone puts in their two cents about whether or not the troll-branding falls into the fair use category. Oy veys mir.
Personally, I really like the idea of a pit free for all. This is where I spend 99.99999% of my time on this board. I remember the pit of the old days when you could say pretty much any damn thing you wanted to say and didn’t have to worry about it. That is when the pit was in it’s prime.
I like the current rule. But, you know, whatever. [shrug]
I think the ban on ‘troll’ is fine - sometimes it seems like something tossed out just because a person is losing an arguement and can’t think of anything else.
However, I think the ‘No Joke Threads’ is much to broad as well, if only because it would have disallowed this thread…
Now, behold: When Hell freezes over tomorrow morning, it will be because elucidator and I have agreed on a subject.