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.
How about new rule–“Cite requests must be filled whenever possible, no matter the forum.”–just for DrDeth? 
Use it in the way that Gaudere has established: call the post a troll but not the poster.
I’d argue that you already have – tacitly made the rule change that is.
For you’ve explicitly allowed the use of DNFTTwit. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Maybe… I’ve seen it happen without any counter claims made by regulars. Maybe they were hitting ‘report post’
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.
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.
Not at all. Being a troll is a bannable offense, being a twit is not (fortunately for many).
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.
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.
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.
RedFury, you’re making my brain hurt.
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
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.
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.
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.