Tomndebb--rules question

[mhendo]

@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 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:

@TVeblen

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:

@Ed_Zotti

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?