# Tomndebb--rules question **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 17, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455 "2010-10-17T17:12:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/81 "2010-10-19T21:19:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > For example, see posts #68 and #69 in this thread, not to mention **Vinyl Turnip’s** over-the-top attempt to out do everyone else in post #55. The people in these posts aren’t even pretending any more that they are using the word to further the discussion. I really wish you would stop characterizing everyone’s posts this way. More than anything, I just think it would be nice if \*\*tom \*\*would say, “Apologies. The c-word (happy, Czar?) is allowed anywhere on these forums; the only exception is that it may not be directed at other posters. The admonition was an error on my part.” Then everyone would shut the fuck up, and go have a snack. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/82 "2010-10-19T21:25:14Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > I really wish you would stop characterizing everyone’s posts this way. Not _everyone_, dear-as far as I know you are only speaking for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/83 "2010-10-19T21:29:14Z")
The mods on this board have a good track record with admitting when they’ve made a mistake, as far as I know. But it seems like each time they do it’s only after dragging their feet for a few days. I’m extremely confident that we’re going to get a statement along the lines of what **MeanOldLady** mentioned by it’s likely going to be four days and four pages from now. I really don’t understand why that is. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/84 "2010-10-19T21:30:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Not _everyone_, dear-as far as I know you are only speaking for yourself. You patronizingly call her “dear” immediately after accusing us of being immature because we like to say “cunt”? ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/85 "2010-10-19T21:33:13Z")
Aww. I thought he was calling me dear because he liked me. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/86 "2010-10-19T21:35:31Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > The mods on this board have a good track record with admitting when they’ve made a mistake, as far as I know. But it seems like each time they do it’s only after dragging their feet for a few days. I’m extremely confident that we’re going to get a statement along the lines of what **MeanOldLady** mentioned by it’s likely going to be four days and four pages from now. I really don’t understand why that is. Maybe because people don’t like being treated like crap over and over again? Just my humble opinion, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/87 "2010-10-19T21:38:12Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > You patronizingly call her “dear” immediately after accusing us of being immature because we like to say “cunt”? A sense of perspective is a wonderful thing to possess, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/88 "2010-10-19T21:39:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Maybe because people don’t like being treated like crap over and over again? First of all, we can argue all day about whether they drag their feet because they’re treated like crap or if they’re treated like crap because they drag their feet. But ultimately that’s irrelevant. Either the call was inappropriate or it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/89 "2010-10-19T21:45:36Z")
I think I’ll bow out now-I’ve given my opinion and I have no need say the same thing over and over again in harsher and harsher terms until others concede out of exhaustion. I’ll leave the cheap “_I_ made the Moderator answer me! I am important!” games to others. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/90 "2010-10-19T21:50:58Z")
One last snipe before “bowing out”. Yes, we’re so immature. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/91 "2010-10-19T21:54:54Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I am not able to post what exactly I would do if given that metaphorical sword at this juncture. I can simply repeat that whatever or whoever the root cause of the seemingly perpetual controversies, I really want them to end. They lessen the Straight Dope and distract further from the work of **Cecil** and the Straight Dope Staff. Well, i don’t really agree with your last sentence anyway. They’re a bit of background noise, but i find that i can post quite happily most of the time without the issue even entering my thoughts, let alone being a distraction. As for the rest, i’m curious as to why you are so keen to have the whole thing stop, but apparently unconcerned as to the reasons the whole thing continues to be an issue. Surely the “root cause” is something that we need to address whenever we find something unpleasant enough to wish it would stop? And, as i said previously, it seems that, for the most part, this has really only become an issue of late when there has been a questionable ruling about it. That’s certainly the only time i’ve weighed in on the question for quite some time. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/92 "2010-10-19T22:13:06Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But the banning of the insult, and subsequent debates over it, have, as you note, resulted in a dramatic upswing in its use on the Boards, even if that use is largely confined to the debates over the rule itself. The purpose of the new rule was to decrease the frequency of instances in which the word was used as an insult directed at another poster. It was the insult that was banned–not the word itself. So \*\*Fenris’s \*\*analysis begins with a false premise ( **Ed** sought to “clean up the board” by reducing the frequency of the word “cunt”) and results in fairly irrelevant statistics (I don’t know whether the frequency of “cunt” as an insult directed at another poster has increased or decreased, and his analysis adds no addional data). I agree that the rule certainly increased instances of the word, but that’s not surprising. I haven’t done the analysis because I’m busy trying to find a job, but I’d anticipate that our adoption of rules against hate speech increased the frequency of the word “nigger,” and that cries for the banning of \*\*cesario \*\* increased the frequency of pedophilic imagery mostly from posters other than **cesario**. One of the consequences of discussing something is that the frequency of mentions of the topic of discussion tends to increase. Otherwise it’s not much of a discussion. I don’t see that as an argument for a) not discussing it or b) not regulating it. There may be other great arguments for not regulating speech, but “people will talk about the regulations” isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/93 "2010-10-19T23:40:30Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > The purpose of the new rule was to decrease the frequency of instances in which the word was used as an insult directed at another poster. It was the insult that was banned–not the word itself. So \*\*Fenris’s \*\*analysis begins with a false premise ( **Ed** sought to “clean up the board” by reducing the frequency of the word “cunt”) and results in fairly irrelevant statistics (I don’t know whether the frequency of “cunt” as an insult directed at another poster has increased or decreased, and his analysis adds no addional data). I guess, although i’d add a caveat or two. I seem to remember, in the whole kerfuffle over the incident, that one of **Ed Zotti** ’s express concerns was to raise the overall tone of the board. For example, in the [Pit rules have been revised](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508033) thread, he notes that one of the reasons for the changes was a concern over “cruder stuff we could do without.” Also, in that same thread, **TVeblen** said: > [@Proposed language restrictions in the Pit](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-language-restrictions-in-the-pit/487910/63): > > Look, the real goal is to cut down on stupid nastiness, casual and pointed, right? You want to cut down on vicious personal flaming, obscenities strewn about pointlessly and mods catching abuse just for doing their jobs. **So the point is just a general clean-up.** And in response **Ed Zotti** replied: > [@Proposed language restrictions in the Pit](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-language-restrictions-in-the-pit/487910/84): > > **That’s the goal, yes.** If you can suggest a better way to accomplish it than what we’ve come up with so far, I’m happy to hear it. However, with all respect, saying we should have “a general clean-up” is not a useful piece of advice. It’s like saying all we need to do is enforce the “don’t be a jerk” rule. It’s not that simple. So, while the restriction on using that particular word applied only to insults, it was part of a program whose express aim was a “general clean-up” of the tone and overall mood of the Boards. You are, of course, correct that it’s not as simple as saying that **Ed** sought to “clean up the board” by reducing the frequency of the word “cunt.” You’re also right that the increased use of the word is a fairly predictable consequence of the rule, given all the discussions about it. But i’m not sure it’s correct to say that “The purpose of the new rule was to decrease the frequency of instances in which the word was used as an insult directed at another poster.” That was _one_ of the new rules, but the overall purpose of the rule changes as a whole was to “clean up the board.” And this, i guess, is why the issue keeps coming up, especially in cases where moderators step in and warn or chastise people for using the word even in cases where it doesn’t actually break the rules. Because they are acting on behalf of the board, their actions give the impression that cleaning up the board by reducing the frequency of the word “cunt” might, in fact, be a central plank of the program. If, 18 months after one of the biggest sets of rule changes in SDMB history, and after some incredibly protracted discussions and debates about the new rules, some moderators still don’t seem to grasp exactly what the rules are or what their purpose was, surely the membership can be forgiven for continuing to wonder about the issue? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/94 "2010-10-20T00:04:56Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > You are, of course, correct that it’s not as simple as saying that **Ed** sought to “clean up the board” by reducing the frequency of the word “cunt.” You’re also right that the increased use of the word is a fairly predictable consequence of the rule, given all the discussions about it. But i’m not sure it’s correct to say that “The purpose of the new rule was to decrease the frequency of instances in which the word was used as an insult directed at another poster.” That was _one_ of the new rules, but the overall purpose of the rule changes as a whole was to “clean up the board.” I’d say that **Ed** may have had a broader agenda originally, but was moved by some of the criticisms and adopted a far narrower set of rules, which were intended to restrict only a certain kind of speech–insults. The idea of a list, you may recal, was proposed by **Gadarene** –not **Ed**. So it’s probably more complicated than either of us make out, which is why a simplistic statistical analysis isn’t very helpful.\* If Ed had truly wanted to ban a set of words entirely, he could have done so by making the Pit rules board-wide and removing the “directed at another poster” part. > [@](#): > > And this, i guess, is why the issue keeps coming up, especially in cases where moderators step in and warn or chastise people for using the word even in cases where it doesn’t actually break the rules. Because they are acting on behalf of the board, their actions give the impression that cleaning up the board by reducing the frequency of the word “cunt” might, in fact, be a central plank of the program. I agree. And even if I might get frustrated with the questions at times, I try to assume that the questioners are acting in good faith and respond accordingly. Sometimes I fuck that up, but that’s what I try to do. > [@](#): > > If, 18 months after one of the biggest sets of rule changes in SDMB history, and after some incredibly protracted discussions and debates about the new rules, some moderators still don’t seem to grasp exactly what the rules are or what their purpose was, surely the membership can be forgiven for continuing to wonder about the issue? I don’t see it as even something that requires forgiveness. If you have a question, you ought to be able to ask it. I suspect a few posters ask their questions as part of some agendathat’s unrelated to understanding the rules. I still try to assume the best and give a good faith answer. If, as one poster used to do, the same poster asks the same question repeatedly after I’ve already answered it, I may take a different approach with that particular poster. But that’s been pretty rare so far, and I hope it stays that way. - No offense intended to **Fenris**. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/95 "2010-10-20T00:12:10Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > As for the rest, i’m curious as to why you are so keen to have the whole thing stop, but apparently unconcerned as to the reasons the whole thing continues to be an issue. I never said I was unconcerned. > [@](#): > > Surely the “root cause” is something that we need to address whenever we find something unpleasant enough to wish it would stop? And, as i said previously, it seems that, for the most part, this has really only become an issue of late when there has been a questionable ruling about it. That’s certainly the only time i’ve weighed in on the question for quite some time. You confuse not having an opinion with not posting an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/96 "2010-10-20T00:46:43Z")
> [@crazyjoe](#): > > \ because the next time this happens this episode can be used as precedent. That’s my concern, too - rule drift causes something that isn’t actually against the rules to eventually end up against the rules. In my opinion, we already have too many rules telling adults what they can and cannot say here. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/97 "2010-10-20T00:55:48Z")
I’m sorry I am so late coming back to this. Since I admitted that I was in error and apologized way back in the early stages of this thread, I was not even aware that the thread was continuing–and certainly have no idea why it is continuing. Yes. You may use the word cunt in fora outside The BBQ Pit as long as you do not use it as an insult against another poster. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/98 "2010-10-20T00:56:43Z")
And there was much rejoicing. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/99 "2010-10-20T01:04:48Z")
Thanks, **tom**. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/100 "2010-10-20T01:21:06Z")
WooT! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455.md?page=6)