Continuing the discussion from Honeybadger warning over global warming disinformation:
AFAICR, it was specifically dedicated Pit threads that were off-limits, but I could be wrong. In any case, I don’t see it super-strictly enforced nowadays - banned posters are frequently referred to as trolls in ATMB, for instance.
In any case, it is not mentioned at all in the new rules:
Mods, what’s the current status of that rule?
I just want to say thank you for starting this thread. I am also unsure and would like to know the answer to this as well.
I don’t think the rule was intentionally omitted. I will ask Ed to clarify, but for now I would assume that the rule is still in place.
I seem to remember that we could at least continue talking about them in the Pit in a current thread until it was closed. And, yes, we were able to make the occasional reference to their actions or call them a troll. The rule was mostly about pileons IIRC.
I don’t see it in the old rules. It seems dedicated pit threads were closed. New ones likely would be as well.
Yes, I think it was a de facto rule in cases of complete bannings because any Pit thread that was dedicated to the bannee was closed.
I think narrower topic bans were not used in the past? That’s why this discussion has arisen. Was there ever a rule, or was it just accepted etiquette? Should we apply the same principle, i.e. not continue to shit on the bannee for their historical posts on the banned topic?
Not by my reading of this OP, but I’m not up to speed on the referenced pit thread. I have some vague memory of people being asked not to bait topic-banned posters, if that’s relevant. Could be my imagination though.
There is a difference between calling banbot2000 a troll after he was banned for trolling, and calling him a asshole goat-felcher here in ATMB. Thet second should be against the rules.
Please help me understand how this has anything to do with the OP’s question or any of the responses in this thread.
The OP quotes someone saying that there used to be a rule against insulting banned posters. The OP then specifically says “banned posters are frequently referred to as trolls in ATMB,” as evidence that such a rule was rarely enforced.
DrDeth is suggesting this isn’t true. Sure, normally calling someone a troll would be an insult. But, in the case of someone banned for trolling, it would not be. So you cannot use the fact that ATMB allows us to refer to banned posters as trolls as an indication that a rule against insulting banned posters was rarely enforced.
I don’t think there ever was a specific rule that you couldn’t just start insulting banned posters. But, if we do add one, then I do agree that calling them a troll shouldn’t count as an insult. I’d just extend it to anyone who was banned under “being a jerk,” regardless of whether they were explicitly banned for trolling.
Ddid you read the original thread? I came off from my post- It used to be the rule that you cant shit on banned posters. It’s okay to mention how and why they were banned, but it used to be that insulting them was off limits. Isnt that still the rule?
So, if they were banned for trolling that’s one thing, but I have seen several ATMB threads where banned posters were insulted for other reasons.
So yeah, if banned for trolling then calling them a troll would not be an insult. But that doesnt mean open season.
What is a “pileon?” (Really asking…I Googled but didn’t get a usable answer.)
ETA: Oh…Pile-ons? If that then I get it.
Carry on.
Got it, thanks. I noticed the pit part first. That’s why I asked.
Sure. But the point stands.
Late edit on my part, sorry.
For the record, whether there ever was a rule or not, I don’t think there should be. Lock any dedicated pit threads about them? Sure. Prohibit adverse commentary? Hell no.
This sounds like a solution in search of a problem.