In the Thread That Ate ATMB, several posters suggested that they knew what Ed Zotti meant by Rule #2. Others (me included) have said that Rule #2 sucks, but are not averse to something similar if only it were sensisble and consistent. Ed is being held captive by an army of sexually frustrated goats who, banned from the Pit and looking for a new home, decided that this place called “The Barn House” sounded nice… Poor Ed is not free to modify his rule right now. Let’s help him out while he is otherwise occupied.
My contribution is below. Many of you are better writers than I: let’s come up with a rule to solve the problem, one we can live with, since TPTB won’t.
“Although the Pit is a place for airing disputes, unnecessarily vitriolic or profane ad hominem attacks will subject you to warning, suspension, or — in extreme cases — banning. If you are uncertain whether your post might cross the line, and you cannot rewrite it without losing the effect, contact a mod before posting.”
“The Pit is the place for airing disputes. This is an adult board and there are no restrictions on profanity, although creative pejorative phrases are preferred over a string of obscenities. The prime directive of the Board, “don’t be a jerk”, is not suspended in the Pit. If it looks like your primary participation on the board consists of attempts to rile people up, or you appear to have started a full-on vendetta against someone, you will be warned to knock it off, and if that doesn’t work it could lead to you being banned.”
Except for the line about “creative pejorative phrases.” I’m entirely sick of people trying to come up with “creative” insults that are just retreads of Monty Python stuff from the '70s.
ETA: I agree with Greenback’s comment that this really falls under the “don’t be a jerk” rule. And that’s what’s good about this suggestion and the OP’s suggestion. It’s just additional information about what qualifies as being a jerk around here. It’s not a whole new rule.
I think I could come up with something. The problem I have is that Ed sees a problem and I don’t. If Ed was to clearly define what he saw as the problem (with examples) and most importantly why they were a problem, I could come up with several courses of action. I’m sure others could do better than me.
ETA: I am not calling for no change, just intelligent change.
Really, I think the problem here is that this change was packaged terribly. Ed could simply have posted largely what AHunter3 did – that the “Don’t be a jerk” rule is going to be enforced a little more strictly than before in the Pit, so people should tone it down just a bit, and we’ll give everyone time to get use to this before handing out official warnings – and people would have reacted much more positively (or at least more neutrally). Oh well.