The rules against insulting are farcical - as evidence, yet another GD thread insulting my entire continent remains unclosed.
nm, bad search.
The rule involves personal insults. Of course, in the past a couple of posters tried to use the “If you insult my religion you have personally insulted me!” gambit, but it didn’t get too far.
Since when does pitting someone need to be elegant?
In GD, Poster A: [objectionable content]
In GD, Poster B: I’m pitting you. Here is the thread.
In Pit: Poster B: Poster A is an asshole.
Seems consistent with how it’s been done and with MrDibble’s actions here.
Personal insult is different than insulting a set is it not? Otherwise how would the Elections forum work?
Well, only the southern part, so there’s that!
Hairsplitting like that is why they’re farcical.
yay! Progress. Although I’m pretty sure the OP just said Africa/Africans.
Because, in this case, it’s an accusation of trolling in GD. If the link was to a thread about someone holding odious opinions it wouldn’t have been a problem (I assume, not trying to speak for the mods).
How is it hairsplitting to allow an insult of a class, let’s say Republicans, versus insulting another poster directly?
Well, how do you feel when someone insults octopuses?
What if he’d simply stated ‘I’ve opened a Pit thread’ and linked it? Would that have been permissible? And if not that’s a bloody enormous change to previous rules
It looks to me like you’ve done a good job of answering your own question. A link to an offsite picture of a troll strikes me as a very good analogy.
I’m not so sure. A comment like that isn’t equivalent to something explicitly forbidden, like a specific accusation of being a troll.
I’m not sold on that analysis, though. There is a distinction between linking to a Pit thread and linking to an outside source. One can just as easily argue that a poster should not have to open a new Pit thread if there is one already in existence. What’s the difference between “Go to this Pit thread I just started to see what I think” and “Go to this Pit thread that Thudlow Bloink started yesterday to see what I think”?
Not really. Linking to an offsite troll picture is pretty clear in its intent. Linking to a thread where a “troll” is called a troll among other things, isn’t so clear.
How is that any different than someone getting fed up with another’s stupidity in a GD thread, opening a pit thread where that person is referred to as a dumbshit, then linking to it? Isn’t that (at least in the past) permissible?
You may be right. I’m starting to have second thoughts, based on the fact, which I at first failed to fully appreciate, that the link was to a thread in which GlowingDarkness specifically was accused of trollish behavior, as opposed to a link in which trollery was discussed in general.
Still, it appears to me that Mr. Dibble was not following the SDMB-approved guidelines:
How about just saying “Pit thread here”?
I won’t lie. It hurts.
You’re such a sucker for pain!
Calling people racists isn’t permitted in ATMB either, so wouldlinking to a Pit thread that calls someone a racist be objectionable? Two mods posted to that thread after the Pit link and no comment.
Name calling, insults, accusations of trollery, accusations of lying, all of these are prohibited as well. Though in looking through some older posts, I did find similar examples that were indeed mod noted. This one here which basically takes the form exactly as described upthread of ‘rules prevent me…’ which links to a Pit thread that is an accusation of lying and this one herewhich I couldn’t tell if the note was for the perceived insulting sign off or the link to the Pit thread which was an accusation of trollery and lying.
In any event the application doesn’t seem super consistent but I don’t see it as a super departure from past practice. If we read it as the act of linking itself was objectionable, i.e. the hyperlink was directed at the OP himself, rather than say “hey take a look at this Pit thread I started” then I could see different treatment.
I jumped the gun in post 11 and 24.