Pit rules have been revised

[Bijou_Drains]

Sounds like someone could start up a new board with their own rules and make a ton of money from all the people who quit here.

[Fish]

@Frank

a-busive

Someone who doesn’t believe in things that are similar to busses.

Sheesh.

No no no, it’s “abusive” = “similar to a bus”. A bus-ive.

As opposed to twobussesive.

[villa]

@Ed_Zotti

No disrespect, but I guess we’ll just see. People have been claiming the board was going to the dogs pretty much since the first day we fired up the server. We’re currently at record high traffic. I’ll be surprised if we see much of a drop, but if we do, what does that tell me? “X percent of posters went away because I said they had to be civil.” Again, no disrespect, but how upset do you expect me to be?

My problem is that I fear this will lead to less civility, not more. It is very rare (if ever) that I have posted in a way that I feel would violate this new policy, but I have thought about it a lot. When faced with utter idiocy in Great Debates, I have mentally composed long pit posts, and chosen not to post them. But the Pit as was acted as a safety valve for me - I could deal with the cretinous nature of some people in GD by knowing I could, if I so chose, react in a less than civilized manner. In such a way I found it easier to keep my cool in GD.

Now that isn’t an option, well, dealing with disingenuous, offensive, reactionary arguments that deliberately refuse to address relevant issues in GD is much more likely to provoke responses that attempt to go as close to the acceptable line as possible. And that means people are going to step over it. Even if they don’t overstep, GD will likely become a less civil place. And that, presumably, is an unintended negative side effect of this.

[E-Sabbath]

@Ed_Zotti

I didn’t respond to THIS post (till now) because I was responding to your OTHER post. I appreciate your patience.

The question you raise comes up all the time. One of the purposes of the Pit is to let quarreling posters have it out. As I said before, we’re simply establishing the equivalent of the Marquess of Queensberry rules for such things. The idea that rules are impossible is absurd. They have rules for war, where people are trying to kill each other. We’re just talking about a message board.

But even the Marquess of Queensbury pitted someone, Ed.
http://www.essortment.com/all/oscarwildeplay_rghw.htm

Wilde was involved in a homosexual relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas. Douglas was the son of the Marquess of Queensbury – the man who provided the rules for professional boxing. The Marquess was outraged that Wilde would lead his son ‘astray’ and became determined to ruin the world famous playwright. He had originally planned to ruin the opening of The Importance of Being Earnest but Wilde got to hear of this and Queensbury was banned from attending. Instead he decided to leave a calling card on the notice board at Wilde’s gentleman’s club. It read, “ To Oscar Wilde, posing somdomite.” Even though he had spelled the word incorrectly, the Marquess note had the desired effect.

Sometimes, you just need a proper insult.

Really, Ed, I mentioned Oscar Wilde for this very reason. I remain very disappointed in you.

[Lightnin]

My first reaction upon reading the new rules (and especially #2) was to check the posting date. I honestly thought, for a second or so, that it was April 1st.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@villa

My problem is that I fear this will lead to less civility, not more. It is very rare (if ever) that I have posted in a way that I feel would violate this new policy, but I have thought about it a lot. When faced with utter idiocy in Great Debates, I have mentally composed long pit posts, and chosen not to post them. But the Pit as was acted as a safety valve for me - I could deal with the cretinous nature of some people in GD by knowing I could, if I so chose, react in a less than civilized manner. In such a way I found it easier to keep my cool in GD.

Now that isn’t an option, well, dealing with disingenuous, offensive, reactionary arguments that deliberately refuse to address relevant issues in GD is much more likely to provoke responses that attempt to go as close to the acceptable line as possible. And that means people are going to step over it. Even if they don’t overstep, GD will likely become a less civil place. And that, presumably, is an unintended negative side effect of this.

[serious hat]

You know, you have a point.

A while ago I started a thread on a sexual harassment sitch at my job. Someone posted something I found quite offensive and insulting there, so I pitted them in a fashion that would surely be disallowed under the new rules. But the pitting was doubly productive. It allowed the original conversation to continue without overheating, and the new thread soon mutated into something else anyway.

But that won’t raise ad revenues.

Ed, you know, you could just com eout and say, “Guys, it’s better for the board if you DON’T pay to subscribe. The board will be more profitable.” I specifically chose not to renew last year because that was my perception. I bet a lot of people wouldn’t mind if you were just HONEST about it.

[/serious hat]

[HoboStew]

Wow. All these tears because management wants a modicum of civility, even in the pit? I feel for you Ed. Listening to all the doomsayers saying the board is going to die because of this one simple rule to one forum (and one of the least interesting forums, IMO) is just ridiculous. This board is great because I can come in with any random topic off the top of my head and find many intelligent, informed people to discuss it with. And they can do the same. If you really are considering leaving simply because you can’t yell ‘fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck’ in the pit with impunity, then frankly I agree with Ed. Good riddance.

[E-Sabbath]

(Opinion of Dex deleted.)
Dex, your apology is no apology.

[mhendo]

@HoboStew

Wow. All these tears because management wants a modicum of civility, even in the pit? I feel for you Ed. Listening to all the doomsayers saying the board is going to die because of this one simple rule to one forum (and one of the least interesting forums, IMO) is just ridiculous.

But you are precisely missing the point. You’ve been here over two years, and have made a total of 23 posts to the Pit. The fact that you feel it’s not especially interesting is no consolation for the people who do hang out there.

And guess what? A lot of the people who hang out in the Pit are the same “intelligent, informed people” that you find so useful and congenial in the other forums. These Pit rules are unlikely to affect you in any way because you don’t hang out there; why, then, do you care whether or not it’s acceptable to insult people there?

[MadPansy64]

@Grossbottom

Because no one will post in Aunty Ed’s Gay Tea Time: Le Pitte as long as they can post/read the old Pit with Giraffe, and these changes aren’t about what the readership wants.

Wanna bet? Some of the most entertaining, snarkiest Pit Posters are gay.

No one would post in Cousin Ed the Prissypants’ Tea Time, but Aunty Ed’s Gay Tea time would get boatloads of traffic. Ed’s head would asplode, but it would be Fucking Fabulous until then.

[Ed_Zotti]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I agree with matt. And I’m not one to criticize the boards–on the contrary, I’ve defended board policy even when folks were being repulsively nasty in their insults to me for doing so.

This change is an overreaction, guys. Prohibit insulting mods and admins, fine. But limiting “fuck you”? Sometimes when someone is being an asshole in Great Debates, there’s nothing more than needs to be said.

I very rarely pit someone, but when I do, I want to have the tools at my disposal.

Eliminate nasty personal jibes, sure. Eliminate death threats or e-weener waving, no problem. But eliminating “fuck you”? You gotta be kidding.

Please reconsider. Please at least indicate taht you’re taking this response from board users seriously.

Of course I’m taking it seriously. Why do you think I’m posting all these responses? (And yes, I realize “all these responses” may not seem like a lot, but I don’t type that fast.)

You know what? Wait a while and see how this works out in practice. All we’re saying is you can’t resort to the two-bit remarks that high school kids say when they can’t think of anything better - and then only when said remarks are directed at another poster. If you want to say “fuck the Democrats,” have at it (except in a thread title). This is hardly the soul of wit, however. There are all sorts of ingenious and scabrously funny comments you can make that don’t involve saying “fuck you.” I’ll say this: If it makes us laugh, you’re not going to get in that much trouble.

[Indistinguishable]

@Ed_Zotti

If you want to say “fuck the Democrats,” have at it (except in a thread title).

But not “fuck you”? What if this is in the context of a discussion where some posters are clearly Democrats? And so on…

There are all sorts of ingenious and scabrously funny comments you can make that don’t involve saying “fuck you.” I’ll say this: If it makes us laugh, you’re not going to get in that much trouble.

This is an extremely difficult-to-gauge standard.

(Also, I am reminded of the old shaggy dog with the punchline “Fuck you, clown”. In fact, I thought of composing a post in that vein, but decided not to risk it.)

[MaxTheVool]

One more long-time charter member who has rarely if ever complained about board policy or decisions checking in to say that I very strongly dislike this rule.

[Larry_Borgia]

Just another vote for the “It wasn’t broke and didn’t need fixing” POV.

[bluecanary]

Anyone think this is all a ruse? Introduce something as ludicrous as Rule #2, then Rule #1 (the real significant change) will sail through with little objection…

[mhendo]

@Ed_Zotti

Of course I’m taking it seriously. Why do you think I’m posting all these responses? (And yes, I realize “all these responses” may not seem like a lot, but I don’t type that fast.)

You know what? Wait a while and see how this works out in practice. All we’re saying is you can’t resort to the two-bit remarks that high school kids say when they can’t think of anything better - and then only when said remarks are directed at another poster. If you want to say “fuck the Democrats,” have at it (except in a thread title). This is hardly the soul of wit, however. There are all sorts of ingenious and scabrously funny comments you can make that don’t involve saying “fuck you.” I’ll say this: If it makes us laugh, you’re not going to get in that much trouble.

I wasn’t sure it was possible for further discussion to make this policy even more stupid and arbitrary and opaque, but you’ve managed it. Congratulations.

[Fenris]

Another long time poster who doesn’t like rule #2.

Plus, “If it makes us laugh” or “We’ll know it when we see it” isn’t a reasonable standard.

[raindog]

@Frank

3. No obscenities in thread titles.

This has never been a rule even outside the Pit. Do you anticipate gaining more children as members as a result of (in conjunction with the other changes) making the board more family-safe?

No, more adults!

[Knorf]

I never thought I’d experience on the SDMB such a perfect example defining the word FUBAR.

Ed, this new decision is FUBAR.

Ill-conceived, pointless, asinine, deluded: these are other applicable words. Take your pick.

[Giraffe]

@Ed_Zotti

You know what? Wait a while and see how this works out in practice. All we’re saying is you can’t resort to the two-bit remarks that high school kids say when they can’t think of anything better - and then only when said remarks are directed at another poster. If you want to say “fuck the Democrats,” have at it (except in a thread title). This is hardly the soul of wit, however. There are all sorts of ingenious and scabrously funny comments you can make that don’t involve saying “fuck you.” I’ll say this: If it makes us laugh, you’re not going to get in that much trouble.

With respect, this is a highly capricious standard. The fact that you don’t think this rule will come into play much, while good from a standpoint of not limiting Pit content as severely, is actually more troubling from a fairness standpoint.

For example, let’s say you have a poster who has been critical of the mods and as a result, some of the mods don’t like him. It’s not a stretch to imagine that his insults are viewed a bit more…humorlessly than those of someone who everyone likes.