So yesterday, I posted my first ever message in The Pitt forum. The OP for some reason took offense at my casual remark, which kind of irritated me, so I chose to insult him back since insults are actually allowed in that forum. This morning, to my great surprise, I’m issued a mod note (not warning) about using the phrase “fuck you”, which is apparently against the rules.
After checking the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1st, I consulted the Pitt Rules and was flabbergasted to find this:
What in holy hell???!? What good is an insult forum where you’re not allowed to insult anyone??
Can anyone please explain the rationale behind this rule?
(Full disclosure: Yes, I’m fairly new, though not so new as to not know who Ed Zotti really is…)
Will you agree that there must be some limits, or should the Pit (one “t”) be total anarchy?
If you agree, we only need to decide where to draw the line. The mods have decided to draw it just short of “fuck you.” Compared to other boards, I think you will find that, among the ones that have any moderation at all, SDMB is more liberal than most.
And the ones that lack moderation are really fucked up.
I’m sure someone who is not currently on their phone will be along shortly to provide the link to the long discussion about this when it first started.
Civility is important, yes. And I sort of get why specific phrases like c’sucker, p’licker, and a’rimmer are verboten, since they are kind of juvenile and silly. But IMO, to ban the phrase “fuck you” puts extreme limitations on how you choose to insult someone. Yes, I’ve borne witness to some marvelous, erudite put-downs where someone impresses everyone else with their brilliant acumen, and had I the time or inclination, I may have come up with something along that route. But the situation as I saw it called for something very simple and direct (like reading in a novel “he said”, as opposed to “he surmised”, “he considered” or the ever-popular “he ejaculated”) and went with it. Simplicity can be the best way to get your point across sometimes.
Yeah! What’s up with that, now that you mention it? All the cool forums have avatars!
To be honest, there is not a specific rationale. It was decided by those who make the decisions that on this private board those are the phrases they don’t want to see. It’s really not more than that. The rules arose from a specific incident, but which phrases are allowed and what are forbidden simply came from the opinion of the person who runs this board.
You’re not the first to wonder why that particular line was drawn where it was.
Oh don’t get me wrong, this place is definitely cool. Rather stuffy and uptight at times, but still cool. My avatar comment was merely a half-hearted attempt to apply peer pressure.
What incident would that be? Can anyone supply a link?
Congrats… You’ve found the flaw in Ed’s rules. The Pit mods have been doing a ‘white mutiny’ over it for years, but he is rather oblivious.
There is no rationale. The mods and admins have to abide by them, simply because Edis the boss. It does not matter that Ed doesn’t understand the results of the rules he lays down. He’s the boss, the rules he lays down are law. No other justification is necessary. He doesn’t need one…
There’s a diff between insulting someone and just yelling “Fuck Off, Asshole!” at them. We try to encourage creativity and innovative insults, rather than mere profanity.
The situation in the past was that things had got out of hand in the Pit. While we want people to vent, there are still limits of civility towards each other (not necessarily towards non-participants in the SDMB, however.) The line was drawn. Arbitrary? Yes. But it’s a line in the sand that says that, however annoyed you are with another poster, we still want everyone posting in other forums together. We don’t want any duels, for instance. We don’t want total gloves off. There is therefore a certain minimum standard, even for expressions of anger. You may disagree with the where the line is drawn, but drawn it is.
If you want un-moderated boards where anything goes, there are plenty of them around. We strive for better.
Fine words, but they simply don’t stand up to reason. One cannot say “Fuck you, asshole” but one can say “Fuck a red hot poker, asshat” One can’t say “cunt” but one can say “puss-oozing twat”.
The banned words and phrases are arbitrary indeed, and they do absolutely nothing to ensure a more civilized board.
This has all been said before and I have no problem accepting the rules as they are. Just because Ed says so is good enough for me. But anytime anyone tries to justify the wisdom of such arbitrary rules with this rationale, as though they exist because they improve civil discourse or set a reasonable limit on the vulgarity of insults allowed, it only forces all but the least critical thinkers on the boards to point out the obvious flaws in that rationale. Then we get a 94 page thread arguing about something that will never change, when the simiple answer really is “just because Ed says so”.
I know Loach was just playing the Avatar card for fun but since the board also disallows use of the built-in avatars for the same reason as above, those who use the unofficial avatar system can and sometimes do include these banned phrases in their avatars without risking a rule violation. There is a double helping of irony in that when viewed against the backdrop of these arbitrary rules and the reasons given to justify their existence.
That’s right. No need to try to retcon the situation. Ed wants it this way for his own reasons. Don’t try to make it logical. It’s his perogative, but lets not pretend it was some logical, natural evolution of the pit.
And therein lies the issue. The forbidden words are obvious insults meant to be insulting. The ok words are silly, loopy statements that are more likely to invoke laughter than insulted-ness. Sure, I could have said “go to hell”, or “sod off”, or “felch a goat with a milkshake straw.” But none of these would have effectively conveyed my message, which was that the person to whom I was speaking was begging for an insult, so I gave him one. Simple, elegant. (And yes, Gateway, I saw your reply here and I’m actively ignoring it. This is neither the time nor place.)
Frankly, had I known about the “no F-word” rule, I probably wouldn’t have responded at all. I still think banning the F-word (when it’s clearly okay in other forums, just not when used as an insult) is a stupid, asinine rule, as well as counter-intuitive for a forum that explicitly allows insults and personal attacks. But since it’s apparently not even up for discussion then hey, whatever. It’s your board, not mine.
Heh. Guess I might as well admit, I’m not actually buddhist. It’s a nickname given to me by some friends. (Long story.)
