Not really. As I pointed out, the opposition simply falls into three camps. Those who want to use abusive language in their insults are upset that they won’t be allowed to do so. Those who think the Pit is inherently about abuse (flame = abuse) are worried that it will make the Pit worthless. Those who think the standard is difficult to define aren’t willing to see how the standard plays out, despite the assurances of Ed that they don’t have to fear imminent dismissal (for which they may have good reason).
I’ve yet to read any statement that establishes exactly why the Pit cannot be the Pit without abusive language being used. In addressing that issue, ignore the issue of how to define abuse, since that’s a separate issue. And don’t address it by asserting your personal need to use abusive language, because that’s also a different issue, and as Ed has bluntly put it, if that’s really true, you aren’t welcome. But are you really serious in asserting that the only way to flame is to be an abusive asshole about it? If so, why?
ETA: This post is addressed to mhendo’s post two above it.
All I’ve seen so far is a bunch of wildly disproportionate reactions to a very small extension to the “Don’t Be A Jerk Rule”, along with the Rules Lawyers trying pin down exactly what syntax will/won’t be verboten (with no context of course).
Folks it is a simple rule that will affect a very small # of people. If it works out in practice to be impractical/unmoderatable I’m sure they will revisit the rule in short order.
I have read the thread and I ask this question because I don’t feel like I’m getting the explanation I’m looking for. People have complained about the rule being vague and unenforceable, but most social rules are vague. And I don’t see anything that would help me understand why people thought that a rule regarding standards in the Pit affected the value of the SDMB as a whole. What I am trying to understand is what exactly makes being able to insult people such an important feature of the SDMB that restrictions on it would make so many people raise such a stink, threaten to leave, and proclaim the “death” of the boards.
If you think I’m wrong that the thread doesn’t address this question, I invite you to quote specific statements that you think are relevant.
Post #19: a moderator of another forum posts as a poster.
Post #36: a poster calls another poster “you ignorant asshole.”
Posts #40 and #41: two posters request that a mod to give a ruling.
Post #43: the same mod of another forum posts again as a poster without making any reference to the asshole comment.
The thread continues quite normally for another couple of pages without any comment concerning the asshole insult.
So at this point either it is acceptable to call a poster an ignorant asshole in the Pit, or it is so minor an infringement that it is acceptable for a mod from another thread to pass on by without bringing the matter to the attention of a Pit mod, or there is indeed an infraction but there is also a disconnect in the moderation.
Ed, since you are a Pit moderator, and since this possible infraction has now been brought to your attention, please give your ruling on it.
You see, I don’t really think this has anything to do with foul language at all, and I think we would be missing the point to keep harping on that.
This rule only applies to other posters, not to the general public, your family, or politician of choice.
You can use all the foul language you please, just not when discussing other posters.
So, I respectfully submit that this rule change is a consequence of a few recent, (and in some cases, well-deserved) extraordinarily abusive ranting sessions about the administrators and moderators of this board.
I’d suggest TPTB thought it would be less capricious to apply the rule to everyone than to ban abuse of moderators (even when they’re acting as posters).
Fine, so we’ve established that after all this huffing and puffing, the rule basically isn’t going to affect you to speak of, and you’ll deal with it, however fucking retarded you may think it is. Works for me.
Good lord, Ed. mhendo looked for the word cunt, not how many times he’s insulted another poster with foul language. If you want to ban the word cunt, then ban the word cunt. It’s be a lot easier for all.
There used to be a forum, where with only very few exceptions you could say whatever you wanted, now it has been replaced with a forum where (with only few, nebulously defined exceptions) you can not say what you want.
To clarify:
Old pit: Anything goes except a,b,c.
New “pit”: no insults against other posters, no profanity a.o.p, no this, no that, no clear definition of what does not go.
The whole purpose of the pit was to have a place where almos anything goes, it was a excelent, it was GOOD.
A pit where Cervaise’s telemarketer thread can not exist is no The Pit, but a mere MPSIMS 2 Electric Bugaloo.
No-one has suggested that it’s the only way, but it is an option that we’ve had, and i don’t want to lose it. Actually, it always struck me that flaming and abuse were pretty much the same thing, anyway.
The rest of your paragraph amounts to, “Apart from the reasons that you think it’s a bad idea, tell me why it’s a bad idea.”
With all due respect, you’re missing the point, Ed. Ed, I don’t know if you’ll actually read this, or if you care. I have barely 2,000 posts to my name in many years posting here, and I doubt I’ve made much of an impression on anyone who doesn’t play Mafia or care about baseball. And just to provide a bit of context on my own opinion: I am absolutely certain I’ve never called another user a cunt. My own posts very rarely contain profanity (although they certainly do from time to time), and I’m pretty sure I’ve never started a Pit thread attacking another poster (unless Brett Favre is lurking out there somewhere, in which case, gosh, I’m sorry, Mr. Favre. Please stay retired).
But I want to respond to the above, because I think you’re mis-stating the source of objection to this new policy, or rather, oversimplifying it. It’s easy enough to dismiss complaints as people who want only “the ability to call other users cunts.” But for my part, it is not the ability to call anyone anything in particular that drew me to the SDMB; it was the sense that here was an online community where intelligence - and quality of expression - were valued.
I think this policy is a reversal of this, a blow on behalf of ignorance. The idea that “fuck you” is somehow automatically stupid and uncreative and a string of words you pulled from Roget’s is indicative of greater intelligence and creativity is just flat wrong; it’s intellectual pretentiousness at its worst. I personally value choosing exactly the right words to convey exactly the meaning I want, and in some cases, “go fuck yourself” is precisely right and a string of donkey-penis references is simply not. I want the ability to choose the right words (or to make the attempt, anyway), because the precision of language is my particular interest.
Cervaise has rightly received acclaim for some of his longer, more elaborately worded insults, but I have seen him offer much shorter, blunter, and more profane insults, as well. That he is able to use them correctly and in their proper places is an indication, to me, that he is intelligent - certainly more so than someone who expends huge amounts of effort trying to find a $50 equivalent to “asshole” when “asshole” is exactly the right word, because he’s convinced himself that “asshole” is inherently smarter.
Specific words, specific constructions, are never stupid or unimaginative on their own. The failure to recognize this suggests that the commitment to intelligence that this board purports to have is really a commitment to the appearance of intelligence - to the ability to say, "look, our discourse is elevated because we don’t say ‘fuck you’ - and the ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism of that stance is disappointing to me as a user.
This is not the first time you have asserted that you are trying to regulate something that was not really a large problem anyway.
If you had said “From now on, “goose tatooing” is forbidden. There will be NO references to, instructions on, or links to other websites involving the subject of goose tatooing.”
Most posters would be asking “WTF? When was this a problem?”.
Instead, we have, what seems to be, quite a non-significant number of posters claiming that they feel that they are now going to be impacted in their BBQ-Pit posting style. (I don’t feel that I am one of them. My posting history is my cite.)
I don’t think that it is unnatural for people to try to understand the reasoning behind what may be a “new” rule (or at least a return to enforcement of a previously unenforced standard). This understanding may make it easier (on a practical level, not an emotional one) to comply more fully with your wishes.
As someone who has actually been called a cunt in the Pit (and recently, at that), I support the right of my fellow posters to continue to call me whatever the hell they like.
It wouldn’t affect me either. If you do a search of my pit posts for “cunt” or even “fuck” you’ll almost certainly discover that I’ve either never used it to attack another poster, or have done so to levels which amount to statistical nulls over the time I’ve been here. That having been said, I believe the range of human expression is broad and deep and culling it to avoid insults/abuse(which are difficult to distinguish) has far-reaching implications. The chilling effect on expression and interaction is what concerns me. We’ve got hundreds of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks. It’s long been established that weeding out the dipsticks would also aggravate and drive away some of the smart, hip people. I believe this change will have a similar effect, but I’m willing to wait and see if I’m right or wrong. I’m not convinced a decline in poster participation/quality is reversible, once begun, but I could be wrong.
Similarly, I’ve been told to “fuck off”, and pretty recently. It hurt, and I was offended, as the poster intended. What I didn’t do was take my ball and go home, or demand my mommy and daddy make the mean guy stop. I’m a grown up and if I can’t handle someone throwing invective, deserved or not, at me, then I maybe wasn’t as grown up as I thought.
Maybe in a perfect world I wouldn’t ever had had that experience or had to worry about it. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and I’d rather deal with it as it is than live in a world of make-believe where everyone is always polite and civil.
I wrote a long winded post about this already, but it got lost in the internet somewhere.
Short version: Long time lurker, just joined to post. I really liked what I saw. People here that had a place for thoughtful debates, random discussions, and, most importantly, a place that allowed you to blow off some steam by telling people exactly what you thought of them. Everything well organized so that members could gauge their own level of discourse and avoid others.
But I was apparently wrong. Ed has a different vision than I, and apparently others, have of this place. And while it pains me, I’m looking for a one stop shop. If this shop doesn’t have what I need, the internet is a wide place. I rolled in here one day, and I will be rolling right on back out. If anyone has any suggestions I’m open to ideas.
Sorry Ed. the pit is too important a component to why I’m here. And Ed’s Pit isn’t a BBQ Pit. It’s a Rubber Ball Pit for kids.
This idea deserves to be reiterated, and often. Feel free to quote me (and That Guy) on this. Often.
I would suggest that Adblock plus should only be the first prong of a stategy to get this board back to where it needs to be.
The second prong should be the mass civil disobedience I suggested further upthread, i.e. as many of us as possible freely use as much “potty-mouth language” (as in: fuck you, cunt-face!) against each other in the Pit until TPTB either ban all of us, or relent.
The third prong (can you say “prong” on the SDMB anymore? It sounds so… dirty and abusive!) and last resort is that as many posters as possible take a 6 month hiatus until TPTB get the picture and reverse their really rather awful new policy.
I understand you don’t want to lose it, but the question is why it’s so important not to lose that option. That’s the nub of it all. I can quite confidently state that failing to address this nub in a respectful, coherent fashion assures that the rule will not be changed. Doing so might get someone to rethink the concept.
As for why I said don’t address these other issues, that’s because A) they were irrelevant to the question ascenray posited and B) because in the case of at least one of them, it’s irrelevant because as noted, Ed doesn’t give a damn about them as can’t live without being abusive.
Further proof that after all the controversies, all the criticism, all the complaints, Ed still doesn’t have a…doesn’t have clue one about customer relations.