# 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:** 17\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/121 "2010-10-21T17:22:26Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > … Since we can assume the OP is neither, it’s clear to me it was just mod-baiting. > > Please take this to the Pit, where I can respond appropriately. Why not just report **DrDeth** ’s post? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/122 "2010-10-21T18:07:12Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > That doesn’t contain anything about me saying “Anybody who obstinately disagrees with (me)” was manufactured drama. No. But you \*were \*qualifying the ongoing discussions about the word “cunt” as “manufactured drama.” To me, “manufactured drama” means “I don’t have to take your complaints seriously, because I don’t think you actually care, but that you’re just finding reasons to complain.” Except that the only reasoning you seem to have is that you don’t agree with the people who take issue with the restrictions. That’s my problem, **Una**. You’re taking a \*legitimate discussion \*and hand-waving it away as so much intentional shit-stirring instead of addressing it. If there’s something else you meant by “manufactured drama,” I’d like to hear your explanation. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The OP appeared to ask such, but you’d have to assume that either he was a complete idiot or a total naif to not know it was a simple mistake at the get go, or to simply use one of a half-dozen or so ways to ask Tom directly. Since we can assume the OP is neither, it’s clear to me it was just mod-baiting. If you don’t think that every single person on this board has a vested interest in the people moderating it being aware of the actual rules, you’re wrong. Any time a mod takes an official action that is in conflict with an established rule, it is absolutely essential to establish exactly one of two mutually exclusive things, publicly and explicitly: 1.) The mod was mistaken, the rule stands, the mod retracts their action, and the mod states their new understanding of how things are supposed to work. 2.) The mod was correct, the rule has been modified, and the mod explains the new rule or modification to the old rule, and adjusts the stickied thread(s) accordingly. ---
**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 21, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/123 "2010-10-21T22:06:30Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > No. But you \*were \*qualifying the ongoing discussions about the word “cunt” as “manufactured drama.” To me, “manufactured drama” means “I don’t have to take your complaints seriously, because I don’t think you actually care, but that you’re just finding reasons to complain.” That’s not what it means to me. It means it’s unnecessary, but not necessarily illegitimate. People can be upset over legitimate things, but it’s a shame that it can’t be prevented. > [@](#): > > Except that the only reasoning you seem to have is that you don’t agree with the people who take issue with the restrictions. I said in my detailed explanation that everything, including removing the restrictions, ought to be looked at. > [@](#): > > That’s my problem, **Una**. You’re taking a \*legitimate discussion \*and hand-waving it away as so much intentional shit-stirring instead of addressing it. It’s not necessarily intentional, but it is unnecessary, unproductive, and just plain useless. Whatever the root cause. I’m saying that if there is a continued problem here, then we need to see if there is a better way to meet the goals of cleaning up the board while also reducing ambiguity and drama. So Moderators have less work and stress, and Members don’t worry so much about getting in trouble over the rule. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/124 "2010-10-22T06:16:24Z")
**Una** , (can I call you **Una**?), you want solutions and it just so happens that I am a “solutions” type person. I know we’ve got some posters that are good with Greasemonkey, so maybe one of them could whip up something that replaces all TOMNDEBB posts in ATMB with: “Sorry folks! My bad. It’s clear I need a refresher course on the SDMB rules and I sincerely apologize for any and all consternation created as a result of my actions. If you happen to run into me on the street, please please give me a swift kick in the ass and I will forever be in your debt. Thanks for listening!” I think this would reduce the ATMB thread length without requiring **Tomndebb** to alter his/her posting style. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/125 "2010-10-22T07:10:01Z")
Intentional shit-stirring for the win!!! ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/126 "2010-10-22T13:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > If you don’t think that every single person on this board has a vested interest in the people moderating it being aware of the actual rules, you’re wrong. I don’t. Every time I see a statement like this (and this poster is not the only one to make such statements), I think "boy, some people take posting on message boards far too seriously. Too many people watch too many court procedurals and want to be the next Matlock. IMNSHO, _‘Don’t be a jerk’_ is enough of a rule, and if you have to ask is something is being jerkish, the answer is ‘_yes, it is_’. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/127 "2010-10-22T13:33:49Z")
> [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](#): > > So it’s a sacred word? Well, more men aspire to gain entry to it than to Heaven! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/128 "2010-10-22T13:36:00Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > False. There is constant confusion on this board as to what the rules are, especially regarding language. I see “I can’t call Rush/Hannity/Big Bird what I really want, since I’m not in the Pit” fairly regularly - and it’s confusing posts like Tom’s first one in this thread that perpetuate it. In fact, his post suggested that he too was confused as to what the language rules were, and we wanted clarification so we wouldn’t have to go through this again. His attempts at ridiculous hairsplitting to avoid the issue certainly didn’t help any. I kinda perfer the ambiguity in the language rules. To those who seems to find it extremely important to their ability to communicate, the occasional mistaken warning dosen’t hold up. They get to express their righteous indignation, and I don’t have to wade through as much vulgarity. It’s a win-win. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/129 "2010-10-22T13:49:58Z")
> [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](#): > > So it’s a sacred word? > [@Polycarp](#): > > Well, more men aspire to gain entry to it than to Heaven! 😃 Say the sacred word and win [del]a hundred dollars[/del] entry _du choix_. ---
**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 22, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/130 "2010-10-22T15:50:03Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > I kinda perfer the ambiguity in the language rules. To those who seems to find it extremely important to their ability to communicate, the occasional mistaken warning dosen’t hold up. They get to express their righteous indignation, and I don’t have to wade through as much vulgarity. It’s a win-win. You might have a point if you could demonstrate that vulgarity (as opposed to certain direct insults) has actually decreased. None of the words themselves are banned, only their use in certain, limited ways. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/131 "2010-10-22T16:16:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, there was no simple, straightforward question. Nonsense and drivel. From the OP: **Oakminster** said: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **tomndebb** > > > [@](#): > > > > You will refrain from describing anyone as a “cunt” on this board. > > Has there been another rules change? My understanding has been that cunt may not be directed at SDMB posters, but may be directed at off-board figures. [Lightly truncated for relevant content.] The rule presented by tomndebb is that it is not allowed to call _anyone_ a cunt _on this board_. That is a very different interpretation than the OP understood. Ergo, he asked for clarification, “I thought we could call off-board people cunts, just not other board members?” That’s a pretty simple question. **Tomndebb** ’s answer didn’t address it at all. **tomndebb** said: > [@](#): > > I was in the midst of moving the thread and figured it would be a good idea to note that I was not happy to see Pit language in GD, either. > I probably used “board” instead of forum, just because the thread was between two different fora. Pit language? Since when is cunt limited to the Pit? Yes, there is a Pit rule about not calling other board members that word (I really don’t _need_ to keep saying cunt), but that is because the Pit is where we reserve hostile behavior toward other board members. The Pit Rule is to eliminate the use of a particular set/class of hostile words against other board members, which is why it is a Pit rule - that’s the only forum where it is legal to be hostile to other board members. But there is no rule anywhere that says “cunt” is limited to the Pit, or that you can’t call someone off board that word anywhere else. Look at the previous incident with **twickster** - she was moderating a Cafe Society thread and Ed upheld that she overstepped her bounds and the use was acceptable there. If it was acceptable in Cafe Society, then there’s nothing to limit it from GD. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The OP appeared to ask such, but you’d have to assume that either he was a complete idiot or a total naif to not know it was a simple mistake at the get go, or to simply use one of a half-dozen or so ways to ask Tom directly. Since we can assume the OP is neither, it’s clear to me it was just mod-baiting. If you’re unable to read a straighforward question, that seems like a personal failing. > [@](#): > > And Tom came by at his first opp, and like the mensch\* he is- apologized. Yes he did, which was appreciated, but he did so in a way to leave the situation less clear. > [@](#): > > Why does it seem like it goes on for three days? Becuase certain posters like to mod-bait and stir shit up. I won’t argue there are folks who want to mod-bait and stir up trouble, but there is a legitimate source of complaint here in that Tom is not answering the question asked, and his motivations listed do not agree with the rules as understood by the board members. Ergo, the continued request for clarification. His response in post 97 was the clarification desired. **Shot From Guns** , you have interpreted **Una Persson** ’s comments as dismissing the issue, but I don’t think that was what she intended. Rather, she is tired of the board repeating the same complaints, and would like to see a resolution to the issue. Notice she included the option of getting rid of the rule. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/132 "2010-10-22T16:35:22Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > If you’re unable to read a straighforward question, that seems like a personal failing. I apologize - that’s a bit harsh. I should have said: “You seem to be the one who can’t understand a straightforward question.” ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/133 "2010-10-22T16:36:08Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > That’s not what it means to me. It means it’s unnecessary, but not necessarily illegitimate. People can be upset over legitimate things, but it’s a shame that it can’t be prevented. My entire objection here mainly hinges around the word “manufactured.” I don’t see any way it can be taken other than “made up,” i.e., illegitimate. Because I, too, am tired of this fucking debate. I am \*also \*tired of the moderators being \*less \*aware of the very simple rules of this board than the people they are supposed to be moderating. So, if you’re annoyed about the whole “cunt” thing, too, does that mean that \*you’re \*engaging in “manufactured drama”? > [@](#): > > I’m saying that if there is a continued problem here, then we need to see if there is a better way to meet the goals of cleaning up the board while also reducing ambiguity and drama. **There is no ambiguity.** The rule is very clear: do not call anyone \*who is a member of this board \*a cunt, directly or indirectly. The \*only \*problem is with moderators who don’t know the rules they are supposed to enforce. The only “drama” happens when a moderator screws up on one of these clearly stated rules and then tries to weasel out of it when someone points it out, instead of saying, “Whoops, I screwed up, sorry, I’ll print myself off a copy of the rules and keep it by my desk to refer to so it won’t happen again.” > [@D\_Odds](#): > > Every time I see a statement like this (and this poster is not the only one to make such statements), I think "boy, some people take posting on message boards far too seriously. Too many people watch too many court procedurals and want to be the next Matlock. IMNSHO, _‘Don’t be a jerk’_ is enough of a rule, and if you have to ask is something is being jerkish, the answer is ‘_yes, it is_’. You know what’s being a jerk? Mocking people who’re trying to help ensure that the board’s rules are enforced consistently and fairly. > [@Irishman](#): > > **Shot From Guns** , you have interpreted **Una Persson** ’s comments as dismissing the issue, but I don’t think that was what she intended. Rather, she is tired of the board repeating the same complaints, and would like to see a resolution to the issue. Notice she included the option of getting rid of the rule. My objection was specifically to the phrase “\*\*manufactured \*\*drama,” emphasis added. Drama in and of itself has a negative enough connotation (“making a big deal out of nothing”), but there can be no purpose to “manufactured” other than to dismiss legitimacy and imply disingenuity. ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/134 "2010-10-22T17:19:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > My objection was specifically to the phrase “\*\*manufactured \*\*drama,” emphasis added. Drama in and of itself has a negative enough connotation (“making a big deal out of nothing”), but there can be no purpose to “manufactured” other than to dismiss legitimacy and imply disingenuity. A concern can be legitimate, but there can still be manufactured _drama_(note the italicized section). Someone has an issue they are concerned about, then others who were not originally involved smell blood and start their snark contest. Thus we have a real problem that has been polluted by manufactured drama. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/135 "2010-10-22T18:47:00Z")
The question remains: how do you determine what’s a legitimate concern and what’s “manufactured drama”? When two posters have identical complaints, how do you decide which one you’re going to give credibility to in that scenario? The one you like better personally? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/136 "2010-10-22T21:31:49Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You know what’s being a jerk? Mocking people who’re trying to help ensure that the board’s rules are enforced consistently and fairly. I hope you took a few seconds out of over-analyzing public message board strictures to report the post then. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455/137 "2010-10-25T14:03:58Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > I hope you took a few seconds out of over-analyzing public message board strictures to report the post then. I’m sorry, did you have anything to contribute to the _discussion_? Or were you simply here to hurt snark at other members of the community? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-rules-question/557455.md?page=6)