While I’m generally in favor of random insult-hurling (when it’s done with the panache and style I’ve come to associate with the SDMB ;)), I’m not completely comfortable with calling it “that same logic.” ISTM that the operative term in Richard Parker’s conditional is “arguing in good faith.” The accusation against the non-participant subjects of this Pit thread in particular is that they are not arguing in good faith. Under the circs, it is entirely reasonable that these subjects not be granted the best possible interpretation of their argument. This would be so even if the discussion of (alleged) bad-faith arguing on the part of non-participants were taking place in GD. In fact, you and Richard Parker may have muddied the waters by suggesting that a dichotomy exists between what happens in a GD thread and what happens in a Pit thread; I feel that the relevant question is: is this an argument among two good-faith participants?
It’s not my sense that the presence of a thread in the Pit automatically requires the participants to assume bad-faith arguing on the part of their opponents. Random insult-hurling should wait until an accusation has been leveled, and until then, “charitable argument” should be the order of the day.