Ed, I think you are doing yourselves and the board a disservice by trying to get overly creative with the phrasing of the rules. If the rule you want is, “No obscenities directed at other posters; and additionally no obscenity-free but highly abusive comments directed at other posters. We promise to use a very light hand in determining the latter,” then make that the rule. I mean, even that is a little too vague for my tastes, but at least it lets us know where you’re coming from.
I usually stay well, well away from Mods vs Posters disputes. I can only think of one poster I’ve ever pitted (for being spectacularly ignorant of the existence of handgun shooting as a sport) and the thread rapidly filled up with touchy-feely tree-huggers supporting the pittee and completely overlooking the fact she had basically said “I had no idea an Olympic sport existed and I want the sporting equipment necessary to participate in it banned, with no exceptions.”
I don’t recall even using any of the Seven Words You Can’t Say On US Television in the pitting.
And I strongly disagree with Rule 2.
Not every country in the world regards swearing as the Horrible Thing Which Must Not Be Mentioned.
It is, for example, perfectly acceptable to tell people to “Fuck Off” here in Australia and mean no malice by it (It is often used as a slightly stronger version of “Bullshit” or “Seriously?”, to name but a few of the non-insulting/abusive uses of the phrase). Ditto “Fuck You” (frequently used to mean “I am jealous, you lucky person” or “You win this round, but I shall have my comeuppance!”).
Similarly, I can call my friends a “Cunt” (and they me) and mean it with only fondness and good-naturedness.
Ultimately, if anyone thinks there was a problem with The Pit, I’d like access to their trans-dimensional transporter as they’re obviously reading a different forum to the one I peruse and occasionally post in, and I think a quick jaunt to this alternate universe could be both educational and profitable for everyone involved.
There’s a 10 page thread here unanimously (with one or two dissenters, disregarded for being Extremely Silly) disagreeing with the new rules. This isn’t just The Usual Suspects having a bit of a whinge; this is the Board Community as a whole objecting to something that changes the entire tone and raison d’etre of a very popular component of the boards, trying to fix a problem that in everyone’s collective opinion did not exist.
And on that note, I think these new Rules need The Colonel to step in and declare them Extremely Silly: “This was a perfectly good forum, until The Powers That Be went and made it Silly. So, on my Command, We will revert to the Status Quo and there will be no more Silliness. Right. On my Command…”
Not that it matters, but I’m here most every day for the last ten years and I’m an infrequent poster. Mostly could see the “don’t be a jerk” board policy as a decent way to draw a hazy line that would be tested and when the hazy line was crossed, a mod would call a halt to it. Sometimes I agreed with the call, sometimes not. What the jerk policy allowed was for people to get to the edge and sometimes fall off, sometimes redefine the edge. That’s what good modding is all about. This new set of rules is trying to define a bright line that I don’t think is conducive to what has been a wonderful place.
It is bullshit. As has been pointed out what is the definition of “abusive”? For that matter, what is an obscenity for the thread title? Carlin’s seven words? But tits is such a nice word.
The only other time I seriously disagreed changes in board policy was the Melin incident. Yeah, she crossed a line when she started talking about legal action, but the lead up to that point was not the finest moment for the board.
I would like to see one question answered that has been brought up previously. Would Crevaise’s telemarketer rant be allowed?
New rules 2-5 are fucking stupid. “Number two” is an apt description of what I think of new rule #2.
I’ll join the chorus of those calling for the closure, rather than the galactically stupid neutering of it.
Like other posters have said, we can complain on and on and on, but we’re talking to the clown’s face in the drive-thru, and the headset is sitting on the floor while the cashier is taking a nap in dry storage.
Again, like others have said, the only way to make a difference with any business is to hit them in their bottom line. I can not more strongly suggest everyone use Firefox with Adblock Plus. Once ad revenue starts dropping like a rock, TPTB might actually wake up and realize we have valid complaints.
Thanks for the perspective, cards.
Actually, it’s a quote, and not a threat, bringing a direct reference to the futility of said quotee’s words as an analogy to the sense of futility this thread seems to have engendered. Are you not familiar with the works of the comedy troop of Monty Python? It occurs as roughly the last line in the encounter with the Black Knight, in their esteemed ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’, in which the Knight, disarmed and delegged, announces his triumph over Arthur.
The core problem is that the staff has lost the respect of the community. The new rules won’t restore that respect one bit, though I suppose if you don’t care about that, then yeah, these new rules are a super idea.
The fact that you think it would be so difficult to define would seem to be pretty good evidence that even the mods can’t be clear on what it means. And this nebulousness will have what those who love the first amendment call a “chilling effect”.
I rarely go in the pit and I’ve only started a thread once, but I like to know it’s there. If I’m angry about something, just knowing that I could go in the pit and blow off some steam often diffuses my anger. I think the frustration of not being to let loose there is going to cause more overall crankiness on the board in every forum than the amount you are going to erase from the pit. And the mere existence of the pit speaks to an intelligent solution to a common internet forum problem, which is no small part of creating the esteem people have for this board. By making such a patronizing move, you will lose a lot of respect I and others have for the board.
I’m a big boy and I know not to go in the pit if I can’t take what I dish out. I agree with others who say if you can’t let loose there, there doesn’t seem to be much point to having it.
And while it makes sense to move legitimate but non abusive complaints to About This Messageboard, I would let simple rants about mods and the board stay there.
The thing that really stings is, in your attempt to put a damper on abuse and insult that for the most part is shallow ranting, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing, you’ve let us know the low opinion you have of your reader’s intelligence and maturity, and ultimately that is the biggest insult and abuse of our friendship.
I’m still waiting for an answer on that:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10872208
Hmm…
Advice taken.
This is nice.
Just password protect the Pit. Keeps the newbies out, yet can let the PvP stuff continue for those who have the sack for it.
Jeez. As usual, I’m late to the party. Forgive the lack of “originality” herein.
Count me with the Teeming Hundreds who believe Rule Two is an engraved invitation to a train wreck.
The rule simply is too damned subjective to be useful in the real world. (After this discussion has run its course, let’s take on the question of what constitutes pornography.) Enforcement can only be arbitrary and capricious.
I had intended to say more, but a sense of futility has overtaken me. In the end, the SDMB is now indubitably Ed’s Lionel Train Set, and he shall do with it as he wishes.
Good idea. I doubt that the staff here knows how to implement this in vBulletin, considering past performance…
Not that anyone cares after 10 pages of outrage over all this, but after thinking on it a bit I realized what Ed’s trying to do.
He’s not moderating, he’s editing. I mean, he’s an editor, it’s what he does. He’s trying to make the pit (and the boards as a whole) more marketable, entertaining, or interesting. He’s using his own sense of what’s readable to try to mold the content into something that he thinks will sell.
The only problem is we’re not a group of writers paid to produce interesting content. He can’t shape our contributions to match his view of entertainment.
That would result in fewer eyeballs on the ads in the Pit. Not likely to happen.
There was a PIT thread advocating the same earlier today but it was disapearred rather than just being closed.
Your argument and your examples are stupid and do not support what you’re trying to say. The whole point of the Pit is that it’s an outlet for extreme interactions. A librarian slapping my hand is not an extreme interaction and obviously, obviously, there’s no call for invective.
But if some walnut-brained yahoo comes up to my desk at work and tries to browbeat me into voting for Lyndon LaRouche, or if a stranger approaches me at a party and begins arguing that the Nazis were misunderstood and the ovens were just ordinary showers and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a factual exposé, you’re goddamn right I’m gonna call the cunt a cunt and tell him to fuck the fuck off.
The rule change solves a problem that doesn’t exist. We aren’t leaping at one another’s throats over nothing. The moon-hoax thing mentioned earlier in the thread was a straw man, because it doesn’t actually go the way it was represented. It actually goes like this:
Hoax Arguer: The moon landings were faked because (blah blah blah).
First SDMBer: No, because (counterblah).
Second SDMBer: (Tangential mockery of the idea, not the arguer.)
Hoax Arguer: I disagree, because (repeat of blah blah blah).
Third SDMBer: Rolleyes.
First SDMBer: Presuming you’re serious, (more counterblah).
Hoax Arguer: Listen, can’t you see that (repeat of blah blah blah).
Fourth SDMBer: Okay, look. (Long, detailed recapitulation of past debates.)
Hoax Arguer: I don’t buy it, because (repeat of blah blah blah).
First SDMBer, in the Pit: Hoax Arguer is a stupid motherfucker.
That, according to the new rule, would be abusive. But: I’d assert that it’s not abusive, because in situations like this, it is a simple statement of objective fact — “hoax arguer” is a stupid motherfucker. Now, though, arbitrarily, we are not allowed to observe the stupid-motherfuckerness of the stupid motherfuckers, because it’s not “civil.” No, instead, we need to exercise our thesaurian muscles, and create some other way of expressing the same sentiment, in hopes that more creative epithets will generate amusement in the curtained cabal, and preclude chastisement for the uncivility.
But why? Why go to these lengths? The standard Hoax Arguer, or any other classical dumb-argument dead-horse-flogger — Stormfronters, anti-vaxxers, Obama-not-a-citizen bozos, ad nauseum: any of the quickly-recognizable agenda-driven numbskulls who park their rhetorically-leaky muscle cars in our flowerbeds on a weekly basis — is, simply and obviously, a stupid goddamn motherfucker. It adds nothing to the board’s culture to disallow a flat statement of that inarguable fact, and, I would argue, harms the board’s culture and its ostensible purpose, inherited from Signior Adams, of mocking the stupid back into its cave.
This is ridiculous nonsense, and it’s astonishing that the administration is being so stubborn. Unless StinkFishPot is right, and this is a boot callously swung into the anthill for some misdirected purpose. One way or another, it sucks.
Considering that Cecil is Ed’s pen name, I think we already know.
At some point after he promised to shut up.