I was very surprised to see this mod note from RickJay:
I always thought that was perfectly fine, and have it done is quite a few times myself. Am I wrong? Did something change?
He was trying to find a work-around to get past the “no calling people ‘troll’ outside the Pit” rule, and failed.
Certainly people who start Pit threads about a poster in GD do so usually with a link to the Pit thread (and I think that Pit thread was linked to by the person who started it when she started it. I can’t see how that’s any different from someone else linking to the tread as well. Especially since it was in a different thread, so it wasn’t just a “me too” pile-on in the first thread.
Because by his own admission, Mr Dibble was using that link to say something directly to the OP in the GD thread.
C’mon now. Some things are obvious. If I create a link to something called Things That are Dickheads and say this link is what I think about person X, I’m calling person X a dickhead.
So is everyone who starts a Pit thread based on something someone posts in GD, and who provides a link to that Pit thread. It’s SOP, and has been for years.
One more time: He used the link to the Pit thread to call someone a troll. It is not just that he linked to a Pit thread-it is the specific reason he linked to that Pit thread that got him in trouble.
Failed? I thought it was just elegant enough to remain inbounds.
About as elegant as Phyllis Diller in a naugahyde bikini.
Too soon.
Imagine that someone starts a pit thread. That Pit thread is titled, “Poster XYZ is a troll”. What is the permissible way to reference that thread to alert the subject of its existence?
Calling people “assholes” isn’t permitted in GD either, but often the Pit is used to do so - should linking to those threads be verboten as well?
I’ve seen many times when somebody linked to a pit thread to indicate they’ve pitted a poster. Why is linking to a pit thread that would be the pit thread you’d want to write be something against the rules?
If Mr. Dibble’s comment is moddable, than I think any form of “checks forum before replying” or “It’s not the pit so I can’t say what I really think” should also be modded.
Exactly. Since when has doing that been against the rules? I’ve seen it done, and done it myself, for years without being called on it.
But feel free to say it again. It has a nice ring to it. 
Exactly.
OK, I’m starting to think of how there might be a distinction between this, and what I have observed over the years.
It is one thing to post in GD: My response to your post is <here>; where <here> is a link to an actual post you make in The Pit. Not just a link to a thread, but to a post you made in that thread.
Similarly, if one starts a Pit Thread based on a post in GD, one should be able link to that Pit Thread OP in GD, telling the poster to look in the Pit for your response.
But if you are simply linking to a Pit thread, without adding any content to the thread, that that might be seen as the same as linking to some outside website with a picture of a Troll on it.
Still kind of thinking this through, and not sure I’m fully on board with it, but I can see an argument at least. I also agree that if this is the rule, then comments like “can’t respond because we’re not int he Pit” should be moderated as well.
You think it’s clever to say “I know I can’t call poster X an asshole but read this link to the dictionary definition of asshole to see what I think of poster X?” If that’s acceptable posting you can see that the rules against insulting are farcical.
checks forum
Psych!
Actually, I did think just linking to a Pit thread was OK, as I’ve done it before without moderation (like the times I linked to the racist omnibus thread rather than call someone a racist outright. In fact, I was going to link to that until I noticed there was a pitting for this guy specifically), but I can see how that can be seen as me basically calling him a troll in a roundabout way.
The link was about as "elegant " as holding up a sign with “TROLL!!!” printed on it, then saying “I’m not calling you that thing I can’t say-this sign is!”