Just my opinion, but I think that when the mods make a rule they’d much rather posters try to actually follow the rule then try to make an “elegant workaround” to it.
“Don’t do ‘such-and-such’”
“What if I do ‘such-and-such’ in this special way that I think follows the rules if they are interpreted in a strict manner?”
“:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:”
I moderate a subreddit, and we explicitly don’t make precise rules for this reason. We want the flexibility to say “we both know this was inappropriate, it’s getting modded” without having to split hairs over whether something is against the rules by a strict interpretation.
That wouldn’t work in a court of law, but it’s fine for a message board.
I’ve had some time to chew on this - as well as consult the mod loop - over the last day or so. Forgive the delay.
The note is rescinded.
It has long been custom here to ‘invite someone to the Pit’ when one wishes to confront another poster with language and insults not suitable for Great Debates or other fora (though I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of such posts are in Great Debates). I have no wish to interfere with this custom. It provides a useful outlet and - hopefully - allows debates to continue without being sidetracked by invective.
However…
I can see a circumstance where such custom is exploited as a backdoor means of insulting other posters. Repeated instances of such or instances where the linked thread is nothing but an insult without further discussion could still be sanctionable by your friendly and tolerant moderators. The above examples do not constitute the entirety of posts on the subject that could result in notes or actions. If you find that vaguely defined then you are correct. I have no interest in trying to define bright lines here.
In short, use it in good health but don’t be a jerk about it.
Interesting point. I wouldn’t regard the threads as debates about the nature of running speed or intelligence or civilization. So I wouldn’t call them Running Debates or Intelligence Debates. I can only think of them as places where racists and open-minded, curious people argue the validity of racist ideas. The best label seems to be “Racist Debate” because it’s more about debating what racists think rather than anything else.
Thanks. Like I said, I could see the point of the moderation, and will certainly consider the wording of any such linking I do in future more carefully.
All I’m seeing is a distinction without a difference. How does that differ from the time-honored and long-accepted, “Czarcasm, would you be so kind as to join me in The Pit?” with a link to my “Czarcasm is a doo-doo head,” thread?