Pit rules have been revised

[rocking_chair]

SnuGglyPuppY

[bluecanary]

sNUGGlYPUPPY

[wring]

Isn’t it case sensative?

[Cervaise]

Yes, but each submission produces a different mix of upper and lower case, I think, in order to make a specific association.

[levdrakon]

UgLySnupPity!

[Indistinguishable]

Yes, that’s the whole point. In case you haven’t figured it out, the way the poll verifies you’re giving it a post of your own and not just a link to somebody else’s is by giving you an individually case-wise formatted version to use, which presumably no one else will have used.

ETA: Beaten by Cervaise

[wring]

Crap. Should have paid attention in school, I guess

Trying again> SNugGlYPUPPY

thanks folks.

[jackdavinci]

soon some smdber will be selling tshirts with the motto:

fuck off - you snUgglYPUppy - for thou art a rightful cunt!

[DSYoungEsq]

@mhendo

Actually, i don’t think there’s going to be any “slowly edge” about it, at least not in my case.

I’ve decided that my respnse to all this is that i’m going to try to post in the Pit pretty much the same way that i’ve always posted. Because it has been made so unequivocally clear that calling another Doper a cunt is unacceptable, i will not do that (i’ve only done it 3 times in 13,000 posts anyway). But apart from that, i’m going to do what i’ve always done, and let the chips fall where they may. If it leads to my bannination, then i’ll just have to live with that.

THIS is one of the more intelligent posts in this whole thread. Pretty much what Ed asked of everyone.

[regginbrow]

Go sNUGGlYpupPY yourselves, jobbernowls!

[Guinastasia]

@puppygod

Ok. I have an unrelated question.

I understand that calling somebody “troll” is allowed in pit. Also, “screw you” was considered “to mild to be abuse” by mod. So:
Answering another poster in The Pit with words “Screw you, you troll” is legit? Or is it abusive?
Done. Codeword: sNUGGlYPUPPY

I find it hilariously correlated with my username.

Problem is-are we still allowed to accuse someone of trolling? Because when I originally signed on, we actually weren’t-we were supposed to PM a mod if we suspected someone of doing so.

Speaking of-okay, we can’t say cunt. What about “twat”? Or “snatch”?

[Carpane_Mado]

Receipt ID: 07XX-XXXX-XXXX-6335 Placed on Feb. 26, 2009
Payment For Quantity Price
Straight Dope Board Membership Subscription
Item #-----1838803a985541ab6ab429e8d14 1 $14.95 USD

After freeloading for quite a while, it seems like it’s time to put my money where my mouth is. I think it’s that important to emphasize my disappointment and concern about this action.

Respectfully, Rule # 2 is ill advised and counterproductive to what this place stands for as a whole. I urge you to reconsider your action and retract it.

[Q.E.D]

Have we made a difference yet? No? Well, shit.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Guinastasia

Problem is-are we still allowed to accuse someone of trolling? Because when I originally signed on, we actually weren’t-we were supposed to PM a mod if we suspected someone of doing so.

Speaking of-okay, we can’t say cunt. What about “twat”? Or “snatch”?

I’d suggest you write to Ed directly about each of these terms of art. We are through the looking glass, people. For years, the mods kept somewhat snippily reminding us that they had no time, and didn’t care to spend it if they had the time, to give us a long list of forbidden language, phrases, implications, innuendoes, etc. and would simply apply the simple if somewhat vague dictum “Thou shalt not be a jerk.” But now, since the context changes every time a word is used, they have nothing but time to parse out the meaning of each usage and make a call, trying desperately to remember if the last time someone called someone else “big rubbery vagina-lips” that was a no-no or ok.

They’ll start keeping charts soon, and updating them hourly, on which words are good and which ones are prohibited. And we’ll keep coming up with, and sometimes inventing, new ones and their lists will grow longer and longer. Eventually, **Ed **will have to hire screeners for his e-mail to handle the volume: “Dear Ed, I am considering calling another poster a ‘smegma-encrusted cheese doodle’? Does this pass your cleverness standard? Should I be more inventive in my search for euphemistic ways to call this poster a cunt, or is this sufficient? You haven’t answered my last four queries, so may I assume they’re all okay? I have a lot more questions waiting. Thank you, and regards, etc etc.”

[crypto]

Has this thread boiled down to the word “cunt”?

What the hell? Someone in a position of power (i.e. money) or pseudo-power (i.e. HR) finds the word “cunt” offensive. Well, why exactly? What male equivalent will be verbotten? Prick? Dick? Cock? Fuckstick? You’d better pick one, because someone will be offended. Fair is fair, after all.

And is cunt used as an insult no good, but used in a context such as a female poster claiming that her cunt is itchy, would be what, exactly?

Cunt, pussy, vajayjay, hairpie… when does it end?

A serious question… since when is cunt the word that is offensive absolutely? Is it hate speech? I don’t get it. I think a legitimate question for GQ is, "What’s the origin of the word cunt, and why is it unspeakable (and now unreadable) in the US?

Welcome to the next installment of Political Correctness. All of you people who loved this stuff because calling someone “handicapped” was terrible and “handicapable” or “differentially-abled” made them feel so much better in their wheel chairs now have to live with crap like this. Cunt offends. Hell, everything can offend. How about this? People who are easily offended, stay out of the Pit. Leave it alone.

PS. I don’t think the States have figured it out. I still see handicapped parking, handicapped license plates, and handicapped people every where! I also see gravitationally challenged (or height disadvantaged) aka FAT people everywhere, but FAT hasn’t been banned.

[sub](don’t tell anyone, but I’ve seen a few black people too, and I had no idea if they were african or even american. Gotta love PC!)[/sub]

Stink Fish Pot
Charter Member

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

@Starving_Artist

It isn’t to raise the level of civility, ostensibly or any other way. Ed simply doesn’t want posters cursing at each other. That’s all there is to it, and he’s said so several times.

I dunno, seems like he’s looking for some added civility with it.

@Ed

(1) Most of what’s in the Pit we find pretty entertaining, but some of the cruder stuff we could do without. (2) Interaction between posters and staff on questions of board (and especially Pit) administration has been getting ugly at times, and recent band-aids to the rules haven’t addressed the problems. We need a new approach. This is it.

#2 addresses poster interaction specifically, #1 seems to be looking for a general cleanup.

We hope people will appreciate the intent - we’re trying to establish some minimal level of civility in the Pit.
[snip]
I am trying to put things on a more businesslike basis. To the extent people think we’re running a biker bar here … well, let’s just say where I can see it would complicate my life. So I’d rather deal with the issue now rather than later.

Referring to it as a biker bar leads me to believe that if there weren’t bikers swearing at each other and about everything else here, Ed would like it better.

“X percent of posters went away because I said they had to be civil.”

I’m not looking for him to attach the caveat “to each other” after every use of civil, but given the other things he’s said surrounding it, it makes me think his mind is more on raising the civility bar across the board.

I know he’s said specifically that the rule only applies to other posters. In his earlier posts, it seemed like subconsciously he was trying to establish something greater with the rule.

I’m just not sure what he’s trying to accomplish in general. If it’s raising civility overall, it’ll fail (given my previous post about the cunty coulter bush). If it’s keeping posters from attacking each other, I think that’ll fail too.

But I’m just another voice in the sea, and I’m tired of reading and talking about it. Guess that’s what TPTB wanted from everyone.

[ivan_astikov]

I can’t agree with “hairpie”… unless it comes with cream!

[mhendo]

@DSYoungEsq

THIS is one of the more intelligent posts in this whole thread. Pretty much what Ed asked of everyone.

But the thing is, it’s NOT what he asked of everyone. He has made so many contradictory statements about what is and is not acceptable, including one case in which his response to an insult was in direct contradiction to an explicit answer he had given only hours previously, that no-one knows what the hell is going on.

The only clear and unambiguous aspect of the whole thing is that you can’t call someone a cunt. Apart from that, i have no fucking idea about what the hell he wants, except that it’s some nebulous idea about raising the tone of the place. You said yourself, on page 1 of this thread, that the whole line between “abusive” and “insult” is unclear, and asked that it be clarified. Since then, Ed has made multiple posts to this thread, and the whole distinction is still about as clear as mud to basically everyone here.

@Stink Fish Pot

Has this thread boiled down to the word “cunt”?

That’s what i’m still wondering. It seems so from some posts, but not from others.

If that were, in fact, the rule, i’m sure that virtually no-one would have a problem with it. If he had come out and said, “OK, new rule: you cannot call another poster a cunt,” i would have thought, “Well, that seems a little pointless.” Then i would have shrugged, and moved on.

It was the initial lack of clarity, and the complete and total lack of clarification ever since, that led to this ruckus.

[HoboStew]

@mhendo

The only clear and unambiguous aspect of the whole thing is that you can’t call someone a cunt. Apart from that, i have no fucking idea about what the hell he wants, except that it’s some nebulous idea about raising the tone of the place.

It is only unclear if you want it to be unclear. People in this thread would rather be outraged than try to understand what is going on. The rules seem fairly clear to me. Sure I can’t parse a list of 10k insults and give you a thumbs up/down on each one (thats what context is for) but the general spirit of the law makes perfect sense.

[Oakminster]

If my old philosophy professor starts posting here, can I call him a Kant?