# Pit Rules, Revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 26, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289 "2009-07-26T03:49:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/41 "2009-07-27T10:51:32Z")
Sorry **Ed** , you’re wrong about this one. Think about it this way – if someone were to use that language with one of your mods, would you allow it? “Fuck them with your pussy, Tuba?” “Use your pussy to XYZ…” Come on. I think the distaste for \*\*Carol \*\*as a poster is clouding your judgement. There is no way you would allow a poster to abuse a mod with such language. ---
**Author:** ![Borborygmi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/borborygmi/32/217_2.png) [@Borborygmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borborygmi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/42 "2009-07-27T12:04:01Z")
All this rules-lawyering is making me so annoyed, I hope you all just [something] [something] with [someone]'s [something]. You know what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Wiggie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/0ea827/32.png) [@Wiggie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wiggie)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/43 "2009-07-27T15:53:01Z")
I’m just poppong in to say I thought Carol Stream was a guy - and that I agree with his/her/its position. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/44 "2009-07-27T18:32:47Z")
**Carol Stream** ’s position is not what it is made out to be. There is no way that **Carol Stream** thinks that the jibe was meant to say “fuck you.” It’s not a reasonable interpretation of the phrase at all. **Carol Stream** is simply using the situation to poke at the “rule” about use of the term “fuck you.” This has been effective, though the result isn’t what I expect **Carol Stream** wants, which I believe is to get the rule rethought. **Ed Zotti** has simply smiled benignly on the dichotomy between saying, “fuck you!” and saying “fuck third person with your dick!” Some agree with this dichotomy, some do not. While I am on record as supporting the attempt to make this Board, including Teh Pit, a more civil place, I personally think that it’s not surprising that someone who objects to having “fuck you!” said to them would object to having it suggested that their sexual parts be used for “fuck third party!” So what you do with this bit of creative silliness will depend, I think, on what your real purpose is in having the rule in the first place. And, as **Fenris** pointed out upthread, no matter where you draw a line, someone will stand on the “safe” side of it and emphasize its existence. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/45 "2009-07-28T01:12:39Z")
How anyone thought that post was not simply about the the third party being so far beyond the pale that they get no fucking – and to that extent **Carol** ’s dick would be spared the bespoiling – can someone please explain that to me? The fact that there was no imprecation there, even by the back door, is clear and this complaint clearly rests on the use of the word “fuck” (and probably “dick”), and should have been phrased to ask about the simple use of that word usage, rather than try to create an insult to a poster, where the only insult was to a third party. The poster was actually being quite protective of **Carol** in that regard. I wish my buddies had been so solicitous of me at the last train I took part in; I wouldn’t still have five visits left to the free clinic. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/46 "2009-07-28T01:38:44Z")
> [@Borborygmi](#): > > All this rules-lawyering is making me so annoyed, I hope you all just [something] [something] with [someone]'s [something]. > > You know what I’m talking about. Ahh, Lenny Bruce! **Carol Stream** You are a blah blah! ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/47 "2009-07-28T01:50:24Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Ahh, Lenny Bruce! > > **Carol Stream** You are a blah blah! Reported for a rules violation. :eek: 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/48 "2009-07-28T02:12:40Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > This is well put. To avoid endless controversy, we strictly interpret this rule. The poster is talking about fucking off-board individuals. That may be nasty, but it’s not against the rules. Carol Stream’s privy member, if s/he has one, is to be somehow used for this purpose. To me this seems more ridiculous than nasty, but in any case it’s not against the rules either. If the suggestion were made that Carol Stream should be the object of the aforesaid fucking, THAT would be against the rules. In other words, the OP relies upon a logical phalluscy? 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/49 "2009-07-28T03:08:15Z")
I hereby declare that the complexities of the Pit rules are beyond me. I find it’s best to use rude language in other threads where it seems to be allowed. Just don’t call anyone a liar in GD. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/50 "2009-07-30T08:13:02Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > > > > [@Gfactor](#): > > > > > > The answser that I gave **Carol Stream** was: > > > > > > 1. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11232276&postcount=42](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11232276&postcount=42) (\*\*Carol \*\*wanted an explanation for why “cunt” is on the list, but “prick” is not. This was **Ed** ’s response.) > > > > > > 2. For reasons I’ve given elsewhere… I’ve said elsewhere that I’m not enforcing the spirit of the rule–only its text; that I’m not adding stuff to it; and that I’d be taking a strict constructionist approach. The Pit rules do not ban all insults or nasty suggestions. > > > > > > 3. **Carol** took advantage of this interpretive approach when she called another poster a “dumb snatch,” here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11356243#post11356243](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11356243#post11356243) > > > > > > … Of course, it’s still possible to violate other board or Pit rules while staying this side of the line on one. But with these rules especially, the line needs to be as clear as possible. There’s always going to be some edge play. The “intended meaning” approach would also prevent the use of euphemisms … I’m not willing to start reading minds in connection with this rule… > > > > This is well put. To avoid endless controversy, we strictly interpret this rule. The poster is talking about fucking off-board individuals. That may be nasty, but it’s not against the rules. Carol Stream’s privy member, if s/he has one, is to be somehow used for this purpose. To me this seems more ridiculous than nasty, but in any case it’s not against the rules either. If the suggestion were made that Carol Stream should be the object of the aforesaid fucking, THAT would be against the rules. > > > > The above is not meant to be an invitation to come up with ever more ingenious euphemisms/synonyms, impossible sexual acts, etc. While we admire creativity as much as the next bunch of tyrannical board moderators, if we get the idea you are playing games with the rules or otherwise jerking us around, we reserve the right to take appropriate steps. > > **Carol Stream** ’s position is not what it is made out to be. There is no way that **Carol Stream** thinks that the jibe was meant to say “fuck you.” It’s not a reasonable interpretation of the phrase at all. > > **Carol Stream** is simply using the situation to poke at the “rule” about use of the term “fuck you.” This has been effective, though the result isn’t what I expect **Carol Stream** wants, which I believe is to get the rule rethought. **Ed Zotti** has simply smiled benignly on the dichotomy between saying, “fuck you!” and saying “fuck third person with your dick!” … **Esquire** , my friend, I can’t recall the last time I read such an insightful analysis of the byzantine human dynamics of this place following Ed’s impenetrably obscure – if not perhaps _deliberately_ obscure – new Pit rules. Your interpretation never… No, let me steal outright from Douglas Adams (I’m not capable of competing in the “ever more ingenious euphemisms” department; I barely managed to nest the quoted posts correctly!): “The thought hadn’t even _begun_ to _speculate_ upon the merest _possibility_ of entering my mind.” Observing you and **GFactor** peeking and parsing carefully through all this thick verbal shrubbery certainly has served to increase my respect for lawyers’ intellects! I’m with **Zoe** in regards her previous post: Clarity is East and Ed’s Pit rules form a negatively curved, vaguely SouthNorth West and never the twain… ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/51 "2009-11-15T23:56:03Z")
> [@What exactly is hate speech?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/515624/8): > > If you see such, **Zoe** (or anyone else, of course), please hit the REPORT POST button (the little ! in the red triangle in the upper right corner of the post) and let the mods decide. **Dex** , what should we do when a rules violation is reported via the triangle, and there is no response whatsoever from the mods in question? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/52 "2009-11-16T01:36:52Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > **Dex** , what should we do when a rules violation is reported via the triangle, and there is no response whatsoever from the mods in question? Do you mean if you didn’t get a personal response concerning your report? Happens all the time. Do you mean that you didn’t see anything happen on the boards that indicated that your report was taken seriously? It might mean that something happened _off_-board concerning said situation, or that the situation is still being discussed. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/53 "2009-11-16T13:04:18Z")
Basically, the mods are neither required nor expected to reply to each report. It would be enormously time-consuming. Some mods try to respond when possible, but it’s not always possible, for a variety of reasons, running from being time-pressed at that moment, to the situation requiring mod discussion. All reports are taken seriously, but not all reports require action at all, let alone visible action. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/54 "2009-11-18T05:36:36Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > All reports are taken seriously, but not all reports require action at all, let alone visible action. The Pit Rules state that “fuck you” _and it’s variants_ are not allowed. What about “get the fuck away from me” and “shut the fuck up”? Are they allowed? Serious question. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/55 "2009-11-18T05:47:25Z")
Verb vs. expletive. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/56 "2009-11-18T12:58:40Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Verb vs. expletive. Due respect, but imperative versus expletive might be more precise. After all, “You fucked up my quote” would be allowed. I think. But who knows. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/57 "2009-11-18T14:01:04Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > The Pit Rules state that “fuck you” _and it’s variants_ are not allowed. > > What about “get the fuck away from me” and “shut the fuck up”? Are they allowed? Serious question. Serious (although obviously not “official”) answer: Pit rules stem from **Ed Zotti** , and what makes him uncomfortable. **Ed** ’s a human being, as are we all, and has his foibles. His idea of a rational dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable insults isn’t necessarily everyone’s idea of a rational dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable insults. As a matter of fact, I suspect that your idea or my idea of a rational dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable insults would be universally agreed-to, either. The thing that makes **Ed** uncomfortable are insulting phrases that imply sexual acts. Things that are merely vulgar don’t necessarily make him uncomfortable. Thus the “variants” referred to aren’t variants of the word “fuck,” per se, but rather phrases that imply sexual acts. Thus “fuck off” is verboten (as it invites a sexual act), but “what the fuck is your problem?” is fine ([cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10891076&postcount=21)). More original discussion in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508719), which, now that all the foofaraw has died down, is a rather interesting glimpse into what makes **Ed** tick. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/58 "2009-11-18T14:06:49Z")
I’ve moved posts 51-57 from the “What is hate speech” thread to this one because the Carol Stream’s question is about the Pit Rules and not about hate speech. Carol, this isn’t the Pit. Please don’t hijack threads with unrelated questions. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/59 "2009-11-18T15:28:00Z")
> [@zut](#): > > Thus “fuck off” is verboten (as it invites a sexual act), but “what the fuck is your problem?” is fine… _Fuck off_ “invites a sexual act”? I’d say the word was as divorced from sex in that phrase as it is in _what the fuck_. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/60 "2009-11-18T16:01:11Z")
You can take up that line of reasoning with **Ed** , if you like; I suspect, from previous observation, that you’ll get little to no traction. And I’m just reporting what I read. I’ll repeat that I doubt _anyone’s_ idea of a rational dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable insults would be universally agreed-to. Whether Ed’s particular dividing line is less universal than most has, I think, been extensively discussed previously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289.md?page=4)