What, EXACTLY, is a "joke thread"?

It was my understanding (or at least my interpretation) that the “joke thread” against which there is an unwritten, though not unspoken, proscription, was a thread whose sole purpose is the telling of jokes.

Is a thread that attempts to use satire or parody to make a point necessarily a “joke” thread? If so, are such rhetorical devices therefore forbidden in the Pit?

I don’t envy Lynn Bodoni her responsibilities here, but it seems to me that, more than once, threads that were more than simply “joke threads” have been closed (and their OPs are being suspended) because she has arbitrarily labeled a thread as a “joke thread.”

Speaking for myself, I think satire and parody have their place in the Pit, if there’s a point to be made, and frankly Lynn’s zero-tolerance for an ill-defined transgression has had a chilling effect on my posting here (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing).

Would it be reasonable, in such instances, for a moderator to require the OP to justify the thread, rather than summarily closing it? To ask the OP to make his/her point a little more clearly, or risk having the thread closed as a “joke thread”? Or perhaps someone else has another suggestion?

Parody and satire have a point. Joke threads have no point other than as a joke. Seems clear to me.

That is my interpretation as a Member and implies no offical implication. I expressly deny any interpretation that would label my comments as Junior Modding.

Yes, but I think it’s a given that the POINT of any thread is not always clear. To suspend someone for lack of clarity because they ATTEMPTED to make a point with humor seems odd to me; one is not suspended for unclarity, unless there an attempt at humor involved.

Link?

'cause if it’s the one I suspect it is (which was locked when Lynn suspended the OP), the OP stated “it’s a joke”.

Satires and parodies are pitting what they’re satirizing/parodying. There is no actual object in a joke thread.

The crux of the issue is intention.

I always took this to mean two things:

  1. No fake pittings. If you pit someone, you’re supposed to mean it. This doesn’t mean the pitting can’t be funny.
  2. No pit threads specifically for telling jokes, e.g. “Tell me your favorite dirty joke.”

I agree, Laurange. I would never intentionally start a “joke thread.” But I have started threads wherein I tried to make a point satirically, and had them closed without discussion by Lynn. Now, I’m not saying that it’s more than possible that my point may have been obscured–perhaps even obscured by my unsuccessful attempt at satire.

But Lynn seems to make a practice of declaring the OP’s intention without giving them the opportunity to clarify. The only solution, as far as I can see, is to be very very careful never to include any irony or humor in one’s Pit OPs; I can’t imagination that this is the intended outcome of Lynn’s scorched-earth policy.

And wring, “It’s a joke” in this context is more likely to mean “It’s a joke to make a point” rather than “It’s a joke thread.”

I’ve never seen a suspension either.

Well, if you think Lynn, or another mod, closed a thread in error, you can always e-mail them, and explain what you’re trying to do, or ask them why they closed it.

in herelsa Lund** has been suspended, according to Lynn, and indeed, the membership status is listed as “suspended”.

so, lissener you seem to be disagreeing w/her interpretation of the remark? then I’m correct in assuming that this thread is an offshoot of the other one, eh? why not link the goddam thing, then?

Have done so without response. Besides, it’s a pattern I’m talking about, and a need, perhaps, for a codification of a rule that’s enforced better than it’s defined.

Hi lissener, it’s nice to see you again. :slight_smile:

Homebrew, wring and LaurAnge said what I popped in to say, except:

Some people get off on pushing the limits; for some, it seems provocation is avocation. I hasten to add, however, although this topic is especially prickly for Lynn, she was very generous with the kid.
Hey wring, click the “unspoken” link in the OP.

(Previous post was in reponse to Capt. A. The following is not.)

This is the Pit, right, wring? Fuck you, moron.

As far as I can tell, the test for a “joke thread” is whether the only point of the OP (or hijacked thread, in the case of your third link) can be reasonably interpreted to be “I’m bored and/or need attention”. I don’t remember any examples in recent history where a mod/admin’s reference to joke threads in the pit didn’t meet this criteria.

I’m a big fan of clearly written rules, though, so if Lynn felt compelled to add a sentence about joke threads to the Pit rules, I’d stop and think to myself “gee, that’s swell” before going about my day.

lissener, it’s also a rule of the SDMB that if you’re satyriing something, you must be clear about what you’re satirizing and link to it. Maybe that’s where you fell afoul of the law.

Mr. B, the linked thread is NOT a joke thread, though Ilsa attempts to make his point humorously. My closed thread had a very serious intent, but was closed as a joke thread without discussion.

My point is that “joke thread” is extremely ill-defined. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please share the definition with me, in such a way that convinces me that Lynn was “generous” with Ilsa. For now, I don’t agree with you: I think Lynn used a questionable transgression as a hamhanded example.

Ilsa thought he was following the rules when he posted that thread, as did I when I posted mine. Come to find out, we were WRONG about our own intentions because Lynn didn’t get it. Not her fault for not getting it; clarity is the OP’s responsibility. But summarily closing a thread for what is ultimately a misinterpretation of intent, not to mention suspending a doper who was acting in good faith, strikes me as a bit draconian, rather than “generous.”

A clear definition would, I should think, make such future examples less necessary.

Laur, what if you’re satirizing a general attitude, or something that affords no linkage? As I’ve said, clarity is the responsiblity of the OP, so that’s not necessarily something most folks should try at home. But if you DO post without such a safety net, I would think a mod might interject, as they have in other circumstances, something along the lines of, “This thread appears to be a joke thread. If the OP doesn’t provide a convincing clarification of his/her point, I’m closing this thread.”

  1. No pit threads specifically to expand one’s repitiore of insults.

yea, I didn’t notice the link you provided in the OP, so sue me. But your OP still is idiotic. You disagreed w/her assesment of the thread in question, apparently (and if this is incorrect, I’m sure you will in your own, unique, heart felt, gentle way, be able to clarify your intentions since they’d been unclear).

you state, in another response that you’ve emailed the question. Of course, since you link three links in the OP, it’s unclear once again, which question you’ve emailed. And I’m sure, that you’ll be able, once again, to clarify your intent, in your very, very own, special, warm and sophisticated way.

You seem to be requesting clarification of a rule, that you, personally, find to be unclear, although only a few members of these several thousands here seem to run afoul of it. Of course, yet again, if I’ve misunderstood your point, I’m quite sure that you’ll be able, ever at the ready, clarify what you meant, in your own, precious, precocious and sweet way.

*** Smoochies *** to you, too, dear.

Frankly, I’m just surprised to see that “Suspended” exists as a user status.