What constitutes provoking.

In light of this from Ed:

I’d like crystal clear clarification on what constitutes provoking.

As it stands now, it seems to me that we can’t pit him because if we do, it might provoke him into saying something he shouldn’t.

Is it really being put on the users here to make sure someone else doesn’t say something they shouldn’t.

Can I or anyone else get the same protections? After all someome might provoke me into breaking a rule around here.

lissener and Verhoeven.

The onus is on Cesario, who was instructed not to post about his favorite topic anymore. Since he’s not allowed to post about that it’s only fair to say other people can’t try to bait him into violating that instruction. I think the full quote makes that clearer:

I think it’s reasonable to say that includes Pittings (although I’m not a Pit mod and they might feel differentl) and off-topic references to Cesario in other threads.

So, for clarity we’re not allowed to pit this particular doper?

I’m referring your question to the Pit mods so they can answer it. That’s better than me taking a guess. They’d be the ones who applied the rule if they interpret it that way. In Great Debates I’ll say it would include encouraging him to post in a thread about pedophiles, and posting asides directed at him in threads that are related to his issues. We don’t get a lot of that kind of stuff in GD and I’ve never seen anyone ask him to participate in a thread, so I’m not worried about that turning into a major issue.

Well, color me surprised. I would think a Pit thread clearly constitutes provocation.

I would think pitting him for views he is not allowed to discuss would be provocation.

In the mean time, Pduol, comes out of the pedophile closet, as it were, and **Cesario **sits in his mom’s basement banging his head against the wall because he’s not allowed to post in it.

Small victories, I suppose.

He did post to it. I am not sure when the ban on his posting about his perversion went into effect, but if it was already in place, this would appear to be a violation.


I don’t know when the ban went into effect either, but that post was made within 10 minutes of the post explaining the ban and the request for posters to not provoke him into violating it.

Is it possible that he was not yet aware that he was not to post such things any longer? It seems like it would be unfair to consider that post a violation if he did not yet know the new rule.

In regards to that, how long to posters get to read their messages or responses outlining new rules before they are expected to know? A few hours or a day seems reasonable… but is there any kind of guideline for that?

For the sake of clarity, you aren’t allowed to Pit him for posting about pedophilia because he’s not allowed to talk about it anymore. You may Pit him for other activities and personality defects. If you see him posting in the future (i.e., with time stamps after the one on this post) about pedophilia the thing to do is report the post.

And yes, I know about his posts in Pdoul’s thread. I’m going there next.

Well, he could, theoretically, get pitted over…preferring Miracle Whip to Mayonnaise or something. As long as the pitting wasn’t about the ‘forbidden subject’ I don’t see how it could be a provocation.

Thank you for the clarification.

You’re right, of course. However, the ban against provoking him is in regard to pedophilia, so outside that subject there would have been no reason for tacoloco to ask.

FWIW I think that Ed and the Staff have taken the best possible course of action which they could do in this situation.



I suspect he’s primarily a troll, so I ask the following question in order to prevent a problem before it happens:

Would an “I hate [people of a certain sexual proclivity]” thread constitute provocation?

Also - probably the best call the Mods could have made. Well done.

After the events of the last few days, it’s hard to imagine that thread as being anything but an attack on him, so, yes, that would constitute provocation.

Depends on the circumstances. Today that thread would look like a thinly-veiled atack. Next month, maybe not. I will folow my usual practice of using mod notes in ambiguous cases.

…d not finishing sentences, leaving posters in suspense.