It has always been the rule that you can link to a pit thread about someone. All such links would be inherently insulting the person–of which calling someone a troll is a subset.
I’d also argue it’s necessary. It informs the person that there is a pit thread about them, and informs other participants that the accusation has been made so they don’t unnecessarily feed them, without hijacking the thread.
One of the more annoying things about the moderation on this board is how it does not remain consistent–only followed by the reluctance to tell people exactly what is warnable in certain situations. It’s like common law–you learn from how the moderation happens. Except no one honors precedents and you can’t appeal.
Given that I can see an argument from both sides, I would hope that we would choose to view this from the aspect of “fewer rules are better” and allow such posts in the future. Posters should generally be able to reference Pit threads in reaction to posts without violating the “no insults in GD” rule.
The purpose of the Pit is to flame, but it has long been considered board etiquette for the flamer to inform the flamee of said flaimitude.
Look, if someone is an established troll, or a demonstrated racist, that often is the most important thing to know before engaging with their posts. If this information is already posted, on this site, and some fine parsing of rules prevents people from just pointing to it… that’s flat stupid.
No. What’s counterproductive is not being able to separate the message from assumptions about the messenger. One should be able to debate or discuss the premise of the thread or ignore it without needing to insult the poster.
I think there is some nuance missed (I missed it too). Referencing Pit threads still seems fine - it’s the manner in which they are referenced. Saying "here is a Pit thread " with it hyperlinked is probably always okay. Saying “here is a pit thread, Asshole” with a hyperlink is most likely not okay. It’s not the link but the msg in which it is delivered. The incident in the OP apparently drifted close to the latter and I think that’s a fair reading since it seemed to be directing comment at the OP as a poster.
I avoid any confusion by not pitting anyone or changing posting behavior regardless of forum.
Possibly, but probably not. Like i said, i can see the mod’s point, I’m not arguing this was bad moderation. Especially since it was just a note. Possibly inconsistent with the other examples given for linking to calling out racists, but I don’t expect too much consistency in moderation here, especially when it comes to what’s considered an insult or not.
The thread he linked to was about the poster and his trolling. It was simply the most accurate thread MrDibble could find. I think this decision reflects the special sensitivity this board exhibits for racist debates instead of MrDibble violating any longstanding practice.
Only in terms of my personal effort is there a difference between my linking to a pit thread I wrote and a pit thread I would have written.
Bolding mine. Well, except for the “kayaker” part.
Did he call the OP a troll, or did he merely point out that a bunch of people had accumulated circumstantial evidence of trolling and does that difference matter?
I get it now. I’d assumed that Mr Dibble was linking to a thread that he’d begun in the Pit, ‘taking it to the Pit’ in other words, a practice which has always been allowed.
But that isn’t what he did. He linked to the troll thread in a none-too-subtle attempt to characterize GlowingDarkness as a troll. It was a clear breach of GD rules and I see that now.
So, if he had started his own Pit thread it would have been OK, but it’s not OK to link to a Pit thread started by someone else? Not seeing any significant space between those two actions.
From a technical standpoint I agree with the moderating and think there’s a clear distinction.
If you merely say “I’ve started a Pit thread” or even link to it, you’ve not said anything negative in GD. You’ve only provided a link to somewhere else where the astute reader might guess has a high likelihood of containing negativity. But if you say “what I think of you is in this thread” then - even without a link - you’re made an insult in GD itself. It’s no different than if you said “I think you’re a 4 letter work ending with -erk” - you’ve essentially made the insult but just used a bit of a roundabout way to reference the insulting words without saying them.
It’s a technical difference, to be sure, but technical differences are what remove subjectivity and allow people to follow things more easily.