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.
Not everyone, dear-as far as I know you are only speaking for yourself.
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.
You patronizingly call her “dear” immediately after accusing us of being immature because we like to say “cunt”?
Aww. I thought he was calling me dear because he liked me. 
Maybe because people don’t like being treated like crap over and over again? Just my humble opinion, of course.
A sense of perspective is a wonderful thing to possess, don’t you think?
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.
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.
One last snipe before “bowing out”. Yes, we’re so immature.
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.
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.
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:
And in response Ed Zotti replied:
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?
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.
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.
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.
I never said I was unconcerned.
You confuse not having an opinion with not posting an opinion.
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.
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.
And there was much rejoicing.
Thanks, tom.
WooT! 