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.
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.
I’m just poppong in to say I thought Carol Stream was a guy - and that I agree with his/her/its position.
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.
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.
Ahh, Lenny Bruce!
Carol Stream You are a blah blah!
Reported for a rules violation. :eek:
In other words, the OP relies upon a logical phalluscy?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
More original discussion in this thread, which, now that all the foofaraw has died down, is a rather interesting glimpse into what makes Ed tick.
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.
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.
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.