Pit rules have been revised

About This Message Board
421

Jesus. I can’t believe I almost made it through most of this thread. Apologies if my witty and perfectly articulated comments have been made by someone else, but if so, replace my words with a QUOTE tag and the immortal phrase +1:

  • I’ve heard about posters committing suicide by mod, but not about mods committing suicide by posters. By which I mean, maybe not 100% of posters, but something like 99.3% of posters. Groovy.

  • Some people have wondered if Ed and Cecil are the same person. This is final, incontrovertible proof that they are not only different people, they don’t even share a species.

  • I think it’s cute that the Straight Dope is going to die on a nice round number of ten years. RIP.

422

Not necessarily. I pitted my phone company (BTW, they eventually refunded me $3,000), but the thread was closed for being too boring.

Looks like the standard for pit threads is that of entertainment value for the PTB.

423

Further evidence suggests otherwise.

When you find yourself in a situation where you’ll accept your preconceptions as proof of your point, or the opposite of your preconceptions as proof of your point, maybe you need to step back a little and consider whether you’ve adopted the Bush model of decisionmaking.

424

Ed, is quoting a person acceptable when the person’s words that are quoted are in violation of the new entertainment rule or whatever you wish to call the non-abusive insult rule?

425

Not at all. He made an astounding claim–that the “vast, vast majority” of pit threads were written by people whose only tool in their rhetorical toolkit seemed to be profanity. That’s an idiotic claim (note I’m not calling him an idiot, just his claim, in case he chooses to attach some other meaning to my words), so I challenged him on it.

True, I didn’t expect him to be able to come up with a cite, so in that respect it might be forcing him to jump through hoops. I expected him to have to back down from such a ridiculous falsehood. The easiest way to get him to see the error of his ways seemed to be to force him to look for evidence for his opinion and discover there was none.

Of course, now it’s turned out that a lack of evidence for his opinion also supports his opinion. It’s kind of remarkable.

426

What’s the problem here, Ed? Telling people to relax, being facetious, all in response to very clearly articulated broad based concerns over inappropriate and incomprehensible rule changes, is not acceptable.

Is one permitted to direct you to “Pick up your socks,”, or is that considered being abusive to a PTB?

427

To keep the pit mods from quitting?

Oh, wait a minute . . .

428

Why, Ed? So we can forget about it? Give you some peace and quiet? No. No, Ed. We won’t.

Oh. So now we have to worry about people’s feelings being hurt? Aw. That means that all I have to do is claim my feelings were hurt, and I can get other people in trouble? Oh, good.
Ed, this ain’t the 60s. Peace, love, and understanding is only most of what we need.

[/quote]

Cite, Ed? Go on. Cite. Show us what you’re talking about. Why is censorship a worthwhile and achievable goal?
Why do you think it’s pretty obvious? It’s not obvious to anyone else in this thread besides maybe Dex, and he doesn’t count because he gets to make the decisions on what’s obvious.

Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

Yeah, Ed, we don’t have the power to change your mind, but this is still a damn-fool decision. All we can do is post here, make it a big long thread, and you don’t have to change your mind any.

429

Disagreement, simply in that any single person leaving will cause no change.

430

So obviously that’s a threat, but is it sufficiently creative to pass the entertainment exception to the butthurt/FOAD zero tolerance standard? Or is it that the entertainment standard applies to insults/abuse but not to threats?

431

Okay why was this thread closed?

Lynn stated the reason the thread was closed is “Contests to see who can come up with the most creative insults have never been allowed in any forum.”

I searched “insult” in thread titles and there was a whole bunch of threads discussing insults and a thread in the game room having fun with insults.

So was this really not allowed to be discussed or was it just in the wrong forum?

432

Speaking of experiencing life quite differently…

Dude, this is nonsense.

433

Ridiculous rule and very obvious disinterest from the Admins about the real concerns posted in this thread.

This won’t work, will be a nightmare to enforce and will lead to the loss of good posters and the empowerment of trolls and thin skinned posters.

It is with a heavy heart that I say that you have received the last penny from me that you are ever going to get* as I do not support companies that treat me like a child.

*which probably isn’t a problem to you but it’s all I can do

434

Nothing in the new rules prevents “pugilistic debates.”

But your post, like most of them in this thread, seems to be detached from reality. You can be acerbic, biting, condescending, combative, contentious, boneheaded, argumentative and while you drink your tea.

Eds not ripping out your tongue. If you can’t express yourself without calling your opponent filthy names, than maybe the SDMB isn’t as smart as we claim to be…

435

Ironically, the new rules would only have the Mods treating you like a child when you acted like a child.

436

Ok, look, folks, after some bedtime, I’ve read through the thread again. The anti-Rule#2 posts fall into one of three categories:

  1. I want to be able to say what I want in the Pit, and don’t like the thought that I won’t be able to.

Examples are those who say they think they should be able to call someone a cunt if that person deserves it. Lots of the posts here, but not many of the actual posters, fall into this category.

  1. I think this will neuter the Pit, and is contrary to the spirit of the place.

Examples are those who assert that “flaming” is by nature inherently abusive.

  1. I think that this rule will be a bitch to moderate, and there simply isn’t any possible bright line on which to enforce it.

Examples are those who have attempted to draw contrasts between “creative insults” and “abusive language.”

As to 1), my response is this: if you can’t live without calling someone a cunt, I’m perfectly happy to see you go away. There isn’t anyplace in the “real” world where you can spew such invective out at others without it resulting in you getting the crap kicked out of you, or ostracized from the society of the place, or some other unfortunate consequence occurring. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: nothing about cyberspace should let you do things that the real world won’t let you get away with. You don’t like this concept? Go post elsewhere, and I won’t be missing you. Neither, by the way, will Ed Zotti.

As to 2) above, one of the main reasons I don’t bother with The Pit is that it’s way too juvenile a place most of the time. It reminds me a lot of how my adolescent students tend to act/react. It’s simply not a very interesting place, and the tone of it is part of why I think that.

I think it is perfectly possible to have a flaming barbecue without requiring that anything and everything goes in the way of abuse of others. If you can’t see the difference between yelling out “FUCK IBM!!!” and yelling at someone “FUCK YOU!!!”, you need to learn that difference. It’s how we work in our society. And no, I’m not just talking about work; it’s true in most everyplace you go, even the biker bars I’ve been in, and yes, I’ve been in a few of them.

Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing what transpires as a result of the new rule. It might be interesting to have someone creative like Dead Badger take me apart in the Pit without using abusive language; I probably would end up laughing insanely at what he said. Mind you, I’m not convinced this really means much change anyway, but Ed requests patience and that’s something I have some of.

It’s 3) above that still concerns me. I think that it may be clear to Ed what he intends, and we will see if it is similarly clear to the moderators of The Pit. But it sure ain’t clear to me where that dividing line is. I agree that this will make moderating The Pit a real pain in the ass, especially for a few weeks while the discontented try out the boundaries to see if there is any give (another very juvenile behavior I always get in my classrooms). Still, it IS Ed’s board, and if he and the mods want to take on the heartache, well, let them. Might be the best way of convincing them that they’ve made a bad decision. :wink:
In sum, it might make the Pit more interesting, it won’t lose us anyone who is worth keeping, and while it might be a real bitch to implement, it’s not inherently impossible to put it into practice. I suggest waiting and seeing. If you REALLY cannot stand the thought of having to be marginally civil in The Pit, go find somewhere else to waste your time.

437

You can’t say they aren’t learning, though.

The last few times Big Ed and his Fabulous Mods explicated their position, they amply demonstrated that they didn’t understand it, its implications, or much of anything. So they’re taking the much more sensible position of “Shut Your Mouth And You Won’t Look So Stupid.” Makes a lot of sense to me.

438

No one is saying you can’t say “fuck off,” we’re saying that you can’t say that when DIRECTED AT ANOTHER POSTER. We’re saying that conversations here have to have some minimum of civility towards OTHER POSTERS. You can say “fuck off” in any other context you’d like.

There are minimums standards of behavior everywhere else in the world. I don’t believe you’d say “Fuck off” to your children or grandchildren if they annoyed you. I don’t believe you’d say “Fuck off” to the librarian who told you your book was overdue. I don’t think you’d say “Fuck off” to a neighbor who asked to borrow a cup of sugar. I don’t think you’d say “Fuck off” to a police officer giving you a ticket. These are all people you’d like to go away and leave you alone, but you have other ways of communicating. All we’re saying is that you need to communicate to other posters without using abusive, vicious language. We’re not giving you a list of forbidden words, we’tr saying it’s all about context.

And, we’re also saying: if this standard had been imposed in the past, there are only a small number of posts that would have been across the line into abusive and vicious rather than merely insulting.

We seriously do not think it will be a big deal. We do not expent there to be lots of moderator action needed, assuming that the viciousness level is in the future what it was in the past.

439

Agreed if only one or two people take 6 months off. But I would suggest that if everyone that has posted in this thread agrees not to read this board or post to it for 6 months, I can’t imagine the traffic going up. That would hit Ed in the only place he would acknowledge: his bottom line.

Unless the board membership is willing to do this, I’m afraid the end is predictable. The Teeming Millions will turn into Sheeple and go along with whatever is decreed because they have decided they can’t live without this place. The lack of official comments in this thread should tell you all you need to know about the concern from TPTB.

Why can’t you all see that it’s all about money? Ed’s decisions in no way reflect the wishes of the people whose content make up this board. He will continue to do whatever he likes until forced to change. You all express your concern/outrage and the official response is the middle finger of TPTB’s collective hand.

440

Y’see Ed, the whole problem with your “wait and see” approach is that, by the time I “see” how the rule is going to be enforced, I may be banned, which I don’t want. You and your staff just don’t have the credibility to pull that off.

Let me give you an example. Let’s say under the old rules I wanted to tell someone to “fuck off and die.” But I thought that might be a death threat, so I decide to “wait and see.” And while “waiting,” I “see” twenty-six thousand other instances of someone telling someone else to “fuck off and die” with not a single mod action. So I decide that “fuck off and die” is acceptable, and I tell someone to “fuck off and die.” And now I’m banned, for sending a death threat.

Or maybe I want to use a little hyperbole in a thread title to make a point, but I’m afraid that might not be acceptable. So I “wait and see.” And I “see” ten million other people use hyperbole in a thread title to make a point. So I decide it’s acceptable, and I use hyperbole in a thread title to make a point, and now I’m banned, because the hyperbole happened to lampoon some pet cause of one of the mods, say, oh, I don’t know, family planning or something.

I think that is where the disconnect is happening. You can’t understand why people are so upset about a rule that hasn’t been enforced yet. But the problem is not the rule itself, it’s that people don’t trust you to enforce ANY rule, because of the way you’ve enforced other rules in the past.