It’s not three camps. It’s a Venn diagram. You can Google if you’ve never heard of the concept. Some of us are right in the middle.
Probably a lot of us, actually.
'Cept they closed all the experiemental Pit threads post haste (except for mine, which they only closed post). I blame myself for the whole thing, as I accidentally left my Cecil Adams voodoo doll out and it got stolen and someone may have abused it.
I have a feeling now with the shitstorm that this has turned into they will be less likely to close a thread without explanation of how it violates the rules. If they can’t do that, then I will withdraw my objections to the objections.
Is it possible Peggy Noonan is posting as Ed Zotti? That would explain the condescending tone and lapses in logic. Pathetic.
Here’s a rule: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” Maybe that’ll clear things up.
I’d be concerned that a thread where people are actively testing to see what the boundaries are would be more harshly moderated than a case where rule-crossing is done mistakenly.
Listen, I respect you and enjoy your posts. I think you know that.
I think you’d agree that my view is a distinct minority. If I sound like a broken record it’s for two reasons: First, many posters have posted directly to/at me. That’s a familiar position for me on this message board, and one that any person who is in a minority is bound to find themselves in. So many of my posts on this subject have been responses.
Secondly, the opposing view—as vocal and many as it may be---- is as single minded. There is been virtually no new thought on the matter, nor anything really productive. (I think Muffin is making a stab at something productive in another thread)
So we have a few hundred posts of vitriolic diatribe with a single minded (although packaged in different terms) theme. When some variation of that theme is thrown out, I offer a sane response.
My frequency in this thread pales in comparison with the group think alternatives.
ETA: The fact is, however, I am tiring of the venom, and I’ll likely bow out sooner, rather than later.
I haven’t got a clue. If you’ve figured out how rule #2 is supposed to work, please explain it to me. I’m not being disengenuous in this thread - I sincerely don’t understand the difference between “insult” and “abuse” in this context.
OK, maybe I won’t be banned the first time or two I go over the line (though I generally try to be polite, even in the Pit, so those warnings probably won’t be soon). But if I don’t understand the rule, I’ll probably keep violating it by accident, so it may eventually come to that.*
*Roughly 50% hyperbole in that last sentence, since I’ll probably stop saying anything at all about other posters after the first couple of times, just in case.
Hey just a reminder, Fish. Looks like you’ve been active and posting for the ~6 hours since you wrote this and I asked for a link. Don’t want you to forget. Thanks.
Can’t hurt to try. If it were me, I wouldn’t just put up a post for the sake of testing rules, I would put up a legit post that just so happened to test the rules. If the mods can’t explain the new rule with concrete, real world examples in front of them, you are going to have a much stronger case that this new rule is stupid and unenforcable.
I took a stab at explaining the difference in post #262. Of course I am not a mod so I can’t say for sure, but I think if you can ID the difference in spirit between those 2 you will be well on your way. And of course, if you DO go over the line, you will be informed by mods, with no banning unless you are a deliberate multiple offender.
I’d appreciate it - I don’t think that this back and forth is helping this thread much. It’s just making people tired who are trying to make a serious case to the administration.
So basically, you’re just here to gloat, and possibly get a reaction? We have a word for that.
Speaking of Chase, I keep thinking of the scene in Christmas Vacation, where Clark Griswald finally loses it, and just goes into a stream of endless profanity.
I’m guessing you’ll continue posting after this, as you did after the first time you promised to shut up. Maybe third time’s the charm.
Thank God you are offering the voice of sanity while those opposed to the new rules are just spewing vitriolic diatribes. Oh, and they’re also involved in “group think”. I can’t imagine why anyone would consider you condescending. Guess how I’m betting on whether or not you’ll bow out of the discussion? In fact, didn’t you threaten that once about 47 pages ago?
ETA: Damn, too slow!
I am every bit as serious as this as you are.
You may not like my responses, but I have every right to have my voice heard----even if it is above the din and cacophony of voices that feel otherwise.
I’ve now read dozens of posts that are accusatory towards TPTB. I, for one, feel that these changes will strengthen the community, even if it means that some small minority of posters jump off the virtual ledge in senseless loyalty.
The “back and forth” not only is helping-----as it is exposing the management to opposing views and arguments----but it is necessary.
If you wish to edit your statement to say that it isn’t helping your cause, then I can only say sorry.
Don’t get all happy, sport.
I think that even worse than the chilling effect of the new rules about the pit are the removal of rants about the board and moderators from there. It’s one thing to feel like the board is screwing us over and you can’t do anything about it - it’s quite another to feel like you can’t do anything about and now you can’t even post an ineffectual rant about it.
It’s also a weird bizzarro logic with regards to categorizing where posts go - previously:
By theme unless a rant or flame, in which case Pit.
Now it’s
By theme unless a rant or flame, in which case Pit, unless it’s about the board, in which case by theme again - unless the rant or flame is too ranty or flamey in which case just forget it and oh btw good luck guessing whether or not ATMB rants can go by Pit rules even though they aren’t in the Pit, and if they can’t go there or the Pit then where do they belong?
The words are mine.
The meaning is yours.
If you think that my words are condescending, well, that’s your meaning.
I hope that works for you.
Gloating over what?
I have nothing to win or lose over this. I think it will strengthen the community and add new members, and draw existing members into The Pit. (and I’ve read on many occasions posters say that they avoided The Pit because of the juvenile abuse there)
Will we lose a few posters as part of this? maybe.
But over the medium and long term I think this will only makes things better.
OK, I understand the difference that you are intending to convey with those two examples. They are both inherently insulting and abusive, though, just with the second one being written without swearwords, and argueably a less harsh criticism.
Which perhaps might be where I’m getting hung up: insult and abuse are basically the same thing. They’re listed as synonyms at dictionary.com (I just double checked, in case I was wrong). What you’re saying we’re talking about is really the degree of harshness being used - that insults would be allowed, just not really strong ones - we’d be able to use PG-13 level insults, not NC-17.
Of course, I’d like a mod (or preferably Ed) to stop in and say that this the correct interpretation, as we’re just projecting what we think they’re thinking. And even with that potential OK, that still leaves a gaping hole in the rules for R level insults. What about “bluecanary, you are acting like a motherfucker in that thread”?
Well, yes, but if I still don’t understand the rule then the warnings won’t help much, will they?
In ATMB? Heh, now I understand. I’d suggest you stay out of GD, too.