# What, EXACTLY, is a "joke thread"? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 1, 2003, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363 "2003-12-01T22:51:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/61 "2003-12-02T14:41:08Z")
**Lynn** , I know you’ve been screaming the rule a lot in the pit lately. Still, though, would it really hurt that much to add it to the list of rules in the sticky at the top of the forum? I’m sure I and most other folks here would much rather have two dozen rules on that list than fear we may have missed an obscure rule mentioned in passing somewhere. And it’s quite a stretch, IMO, to call a joke-OP “jerkish behavior” when an OP calling someone a goat-felching motherfucker is acceptable behavior. This is NOT an obvious rule. It’s a perfectly reasonable rule, I think, but it’s not obvious. I just wish you’d be a little more willing to add the enforced rules to the post describing the rules. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/62 "2003-12-02T14:59:34Z")
FWIW **lissener** , that first para of yours (in the 8.28 post) _did_ clarify your intentions a fair bit for me (in a good way). I suppose the problem with Pit threads with humour is that their intent is not clear to all. I understand **Esprix** ’s thread as a criticism of **Lynn “The Leopard” Bodoni** ’s attitude, but others may not. And I think that’s part of the point. But I took it as serious criticism of the admin of the Pit, not AT ALL as a joke. I don’t want to see MPSIMS threads in the Pit. And if that means there isn’t anywhere to post a MPSIMS-type OP that uses the word “wankcheese”, so be it. But I don’t want to see genuine flames - even if arcane - that use humour wrongly dubbed “joke threads”. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/63 "2003-12-02T15:16:11Z")
Hawthorne, I can’t figure out what you mean by “the 8.28 post.” ---
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/64 "2003-12-02T15:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni \* > It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to post a listing of every single rule, but most are just extensions of “Don’t be a jerk”. Then, one would imagine it would be equally impossible to expect any of us to follow the rules if you can’t be bothered to write them down. If the rule isn’t written down explicitly I would hardly see how you could enforce it. Granted, a suspension isn’t as harsh as a banning, but I think that without a clear listing in the aptly-titled ‘Pit Rules’ then you shouldn’t be surprised when people (innocently or not so innocently) continue to violate this quasi-official rule. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/65 "2003-12-02T15:17:27Z")
Oh; just figured it out. I was searching for Pit posts I made on August 28; you meant 8:28 this morning. FWIW, it was 06:28 my time; hence my confusion. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/66 "2003-12-02T15:22:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\* [Though when you say, “I’d love to see many of the “bannable” offenses become “suspendable” offenses,” I hope you’re not referring to trolling, which is one of the offenses that led to **december** ’s banning.] > \*\* Well, I did say: “Ideally I think everyone who wants to be here should have a voice (_excluding the obvious trolls_ and spammers of course)”. I believe one can differentiate between **December’s** particular brand of trolling (which I believe were often genuine, but misguided attempts to make a point), and someone like, say, **The Grapist** whose only interest was to disrupt things. Anyway, this topic is just begging for a full-blown hijack, which I certainly don’t mean to happen. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/67 "2003-12-02T15:36:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Moe \* > \*\*Well, I did say: “Ideally I think everyone who wants to be here should have a voice (_excluding the obvious trolls_ and spammers of course)”. > > I believe one can differentiate between **December’s** particular brand of trolling (which I believe were often genuine, but misguided attempts to make a point), and someone like, say, **The Grapist** whose only interest was to disrupt things. > > Anyway, this topic is just begging for a full-blown hijack, which I certainly don’t mean to happen. \*\* Yeah, they’re different breeds of the same animal. One had a hidden agenda, and the other was just trying to cause trouble. You’re right. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by XJETGIRLX_: > Then, one would imagine it would be equally impossible to expect any of us to follow the rules if you can’t be bothered to write them down. It is written down. See sticky for “Discussion of Pit Rules.” One reason that not every rule is written down explicitly is that it’s far more prudent to deal with each occurrence on a case-by-case basis. It’s important, IMO, not to employ many blanket-statement rules, because many things, such as whether or not a person is a jerk, are highly subjective. One rule cannnot bind them all. ---
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/68 "2003-12-02T15:44:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > It is written down. See sticky for “Discussion of Pit Rules.” > > One reason that not every rule is written down explicitly is that it’s far more prudent to deal with each occurrence on a case-by-case basis. It’s important, IMO, not to employ many blanket-statement rules, because many things, such as whether or not a person is a jerk, are highly subjective. One rule cannnot bind them all. ‘Discussion’ of rules is hardly the place one would expect to find the official rules. And while I understand the need to weigh things on a case-by-case basis, it does seem that many of these unwritten rules are applied rather arbitrarily. One rule cannot bind them all, but I don’t think that an unwritten rule should be actionable to any extent. I think most of us are okay with the rule itself, but the fact that it’s an actionable offense but not listed ‘officially’ in the Rules themselves (not the multi-page discussion of rules) is what gets my panties in a wad. It seems that rules like this were made up on the fly, and once you’ve applied it to one person you’ve got to continue or lose face. I say go ahead and make it as official as possible if you’re going to suspend people for it, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![DeadlyAccurate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@DeadlyAccurate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadlyAccurate)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/69 "2003-12-02T15:46:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*One reason that not every rule is written down explicitly is that it’s far more prudent to deal with each occurrence on a case-by-case basis. It’s important, IMO, not to employ many blanket-statement rules, because many things, such as whether or not a person is a jerk, are highly subjective. One rule cannnot bind them all. \*\* But “Don’t be a jerk,” is a written rule. Sure, its application is subjective, but so is “No joke threads in the Pit.” Over the last day and a half, I’ve suddenly become aware of this “no joke” thing. Why? Because although I check the “Pit Rules” sticky for updates (by checking the last posting date), I don’t read the “Discussion of Pit Rules” thread, assuming it’s just a general way for people to, well, discuss the rules. I had no idea that **Lynn** or anyone else was actually making more rules inside the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/70 "2003-12-02T15:47:44Z")
People bitch when a Board has too many Rules spelled out too clearly. They sometimes say that the site is “too draconian”, and don’t bother to read them all. I have lots of personal experience with that. People bitch when a Board tries to minimize Rules, and rely upon its Members to not be enormous, antisocial, hateful assgoblins. To expect that people will just simply try to belong to the community, stay current with what Rules there are, and be good netizens. (PS - flaming **Lynn** and the rest of the SDMB Staff behind their backs on Livejournal and on other Boards is _not_ being a good netizen, just in case that’s unclear to anyone…) Instead, you then get barracks-room lawyers trying to argue the finest details of what is and isn’t a Rule like they’re before the US Supreme Court. Somewhere between the two is a balance that the SDMB seems to be striving to maintain, and I think they’re doing a pretty good job generally. They’re going to make mistakes, as does everyone, but the magnitude and frequency of their mistakes is shockingly low, considering the shit they have to put up with here. I suppose people could complain to Ed or the Reader if they don’t like the Administration - however, from 3 years of past events where people have tried to involve them, I get the feeling that Ed just wishes people would behave themselves, not act like dinguses, control their performing egos, stop nitpicking the Rules, and just politely do what the Staff says when they tell you to do it - or leave. However, I’m certainly not speaking for him - it’s just my impression. To people that say that the Rules are “hidden” in the thread, I say this - I think that may ignore a reality of Board life. Which is, most people here read quite a number of threads each and every day, sometimes dozens of them. Their post counts reflect to a large extent the level of their thread reading and presence on this Board. And if they can’t be bothered to read an updated sticky thread started by a Staff Member - especially the Moderator or Admin in charge of the forum they’re about to post in - instead, going off to read all 300 posts of the latest thread about a funny Shockwave video with wombats and hamsters and assclowns - then they get what they deserve, really, when they fall afoul of the Rules. Which is, suspension, followed by banning. ---
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/71 "2003-12-02T15:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DeadlyAccurate \* > I had no idea that **Lynn** or anyone else was actually making more rules inside the thread. Same here. And this posted in the actual pit rules: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni_ > More rules to come as I find that they’re needed. led me to believe that should other rules be decided upon they would be posted in the actual pit rules. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/72 "2003-12-02T15:55:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BayleDomon \* > **May I say that this is the biggest crock of shit I have ever read, and I’ve seen too many variations of it over the last couple of years to not find it absurd beyond reason.** WOW, you think your shit doesn’t stink, don’t you? Well, I have news: the diarrhea that flows from your typing doesn’t have that fresh, aromatic scent you think it does. > [@](#): > > 1. If you’ve never run afoul of a moderator yet, then why the hell do you care? Because it bothers me, because I care about freedom of speech and would prefer to see this forum embody this more effectively than it presently does, with its arbitrary, inconsistently applied, and often vaguely written or difficult to find “rules.” Because I’ve seen users get suspended or banned without adequate warning over (IMHO) trivial rule breaches. > [@](#): > > Maybe I’m just a rude, self-centered ass That you are. I’m glad you have some semblance of self-reflection. > [@](#): > > I would threaten to leave if they were banned or even :gasp: _warned_. Wow, you’re a grade A nimrod. I never threatened to leave, I commented that I agree with lissener that the capricious enforcement of arbitrary and illogical posting rules creates a chilling effect on my and probably many other folk’s interest in posting here. That isn’t a threat, dumbass, it’s an observation. > [@](#): > > 1. **Use your brain.** I’d say use common sense, but I’ve long ago determined that common sense is nowhere near as common as the name implies. A challenge for you: stop assuming that your own personal experience is normative. > [@](#): > > How can you _not_ know what a ‘joke thread’ is? Particularly when **porcupine** and **Jeff Olsen** posted three succinct definitions? Because if you used _your_ brain for half a second instead of your spleen, you’d realize that porcupine and Mr. Olsen are not moderators and that their “definitions” were not definitive and furthermore contain sufficient ambiguity and differences between them as to be unusable as models for clarification. Also because at least one thread which was banned for being a “joke” thread meets the so-called definitions suggested only by a stretch of a hostile, authoritarian imagination. > [@](#): > > Though they’re not ‘official’ moderator definitions, they’re exactly the sorts of threads that have been closed for being jokes. It’s not hard to figure out. It’s not a matter of “figuring” anything out, it’s a matter of noting ammiguity, inconsitency, and abuse of a moderator’s power. [more drivel deleted] > [@](#): > > 1. Finally, what the everloving fuck do you honestly expect to gain from sticking your nose up in the air and making such BS comments such as the one quoted? I hope to challenge certain powers-that-be to rethink their currents policies and malicious enthusiasm for suspending and banning users. > [@](#): > > What, do you want a refund on the money you paid to access this site? Do you want the moderators to kiss _your_ ass when there’s 40-thousand-odd others around here? Hello, Jackass. You do like knocking over strawmen, don’t you? > [@](#): > > Do you want them to just let chaos reign? Straw man. Oh, wait. [sarcasm]Yes. Yes, I do want chaos to reign. Who doesn’t?[/sarcasm] :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I honestly don’t understand this at all. That becuase you underutilize the grey matter inside your head. It’s not about my leaving–which is emphatically not specifically something I expect anyone to care about–it’s about the effect of possible mismanagement by a moderator on the overall health of a forum. > [@](#): > > I just looked back at the thread, and I see that your registration date is Dec '00, and you have 85 posts under your belt. Your powers of observation are staggering. > [@](#): > > Either you’ve been here long enough to be familiar with the board, or you’ve just started posting again, in which case you should **get** familiar before you put your foot in your mouth. I’ve been lurking and occasionally posting for long enough that it is clear to me that the rules are arbitrary, often illogical, and very inconsistently applied. I’d rather see most of the rules done away with, because they’re useless and stupid and result in long-time posters being banned or suspended, sometimes inadvertently. > [@](#): > > I’m just shocked at A) the inability to actually use your cognitive capabilities to figure out what the moderators do and do not like I’m shocked that you haven’t put in an effort to understand what other people are on about. Oh, wait, no I’m not: you’re not the type to think understanding the concerns of others is worthwhile. > [@](#): > > B) the arrogance in saying that you may not want to continue posting here because of A, as if anyone actually gives a damn whether you stay or go. \*\* More strawmen. Knocking them over makes you feel mighty, doesn’t it? Knorf ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/73 "2003-12-02T16:00:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DeadlyAccurate \* > \*\*But “Don’t be a jerk,” is a written rule. Sure, its application is subjective, but so is “No joke threads in the Pit.” Over the last day and a half, I’ve suddenly become aware of this “no joke” thing. Why? Because although I check the “Pit Rules” sticky for updates (by checking the last posting date), I don’t read the “Discussion of Pit Rules” thread, assuming it’s just a general way for people to, well, discuss the rules. I had no idea that **Lynn** or anyone else was actually making more rules inside the thread. \*\* See, I don’t get why “No joke threads in the Pit” would be all that subjective, especially if the OP says they were joking (as was the case in at least one of the threads linked in this thread). Many, many times when Lynn has shut down a thread, my impression has been that the OP was just kidding around - or, more malevolently, was trying to jerk people around. These threads were obviously joke threads. Can anyone give me an example of a thread that was labeled a joke thread and shut down, in which it really wasn’t obvious that the person was either kidding or simply trying to get a rise out of people? (That **Ilsa\_Lund** one in the OP, to me, was definitely trying to get a rise out of people.) I just think that in most cases the threads that have been closed owing to their “joke” status were obviously jokes from the get-go, so I don’t see what the fuss is about. If a thread is called a “joke” thread and is closed - but the OP notifies the moderator and makes a case as to why it actually **wasn’t** a joke thread, I’m sure reopening it would be at least considered. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/74 "2003-12-02T16:13:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Knorf \* > **Because it bothers me, because I care about freedom of speech and would prefer to see this forum embody this more effectively than it presently does, with its arbitrary, inconsistently applied, and often vaguely written or difficult to find “rules.” Because I’ve seen users get suspended or banned without adequate warning over (IMHO) trivial rule breaches.** It’s wonderful that you care about freedom of speech, but please be aware that the CR and the SD are not obligated to let you say whatever you want. You do not have the right of freedom of speech on a message board. The owners and operators can and will regulate speech on this message board, which is why hate speech is not allowed. > [@](#): > > Because if you used _your_ brain for half a second instead of your spleen, you’d realize that porcupine and Mr. Olsen are not moderators and that their “definitions” were not definitive and furthermore contain sufficient ambiguity and differences between them as to be unusable as models for clarification. Also because at least one thread which was banned for being a “joke” thread meets the so-called definitions suggested only by a stretch of a hostile, authoritarian imagination. Easy there, tiger. I know you’re all hoppin’ mad and such, but let’s look at this carefully. While **porcupine** and the esteemed Mr. **Olsen** are not, as you say, moderators, all they did was look at joke threads that were closed and base their definitions on them. It’s not rocket science. Sure, it’s not “definitive,” but it’s as definitive as a definition as you’d get from an official source. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of “figuring” anything out, it’s a matter of noting ammiguity, inconsitency, and abuse of a moderator’s power. Ambiguity? Yes. Inconsistency? Don’t think so. Abuse of power? I’ll need an example. Abuse of power might mean pushing an agenda regardless of rules, or making a decision that would benefit self, rather than the board as a whole. Are either of these occurring? > [@](#): > > I’ve been lurking and occasionally posting for long enough that it is clear to me that the rules are arbitrary, often illogical, and very inconsistently applied. I’d rather see most of the rules done away with, because they’re useless and stupid and result in long-time posters being banned or suspended, sometimes inadvertently. And often **not** inadvertently. I don’t think you’ve been reading this board very closely if you honestly believe people are constantly being kicked off here for no good reason. And you’d like to see most of the rules done away with? Which ones would you like to keep? I’m genuinely interested to hear more about your utopia. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/75 "2003-12-02T16:13:23Z")
Normally you’d be right, **dantheman** – but **Lynn** has said she won’t even look at any mail from **Esprix** for a week, thereby precluding the possibility that he can argue the merits of his case with her. I don’t like how this is being handled. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/76 "2003-12-02T16:16:42Z")
My last post was in response to this: > [@](#): > > If a thread is called a “joke” thread and is closed - but the OP notifies the moderator and makes a case as to why it actually wasn’t a joke thread, I’m sure reopening it would be at least considered. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/77 "2003-12-02T16:23:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Left Hand of Dorkness \* > \*\*Normally you’d be right, **dantheman** – but **Lynn** has said she won’t even look at any mail from **Esprix** for a week, thereby precluding the possibility that he can argue the merits of his case with her. > > I don’t like how this is being handled. > > Daniel \*\* There is more than one administrator. If he really feels he’s been wronged, there are other people to whom he can write. Besides, if I were in his shoes I’d email her anyway to plead my case - if I really felt I had been wronged and that my suspension was unfair. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/78 "2003-12-02T16:30:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Knorf \* > **Because if you used _your_ brain for half a second instead of your spleen, you’d realize that porcupine and Mr. Olsen are not moderators and that their “definitions” were not definitive and furthermore contain sufficient ambiguity and differences between them as to be unusable as models for clarification.** I’m not a mod (obviously) but then again, I’m no ordinary member either. How many members can honestly say they have a Straight Dope Staff coffee mug? ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/79 "2003-12-02T16:32:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Una Persson \* > \*\*- instead, going off to read all 300 posts of the latest thread about a funny Shockwave video with wombats and hamsters and assclowns. \*\* link? 😃 * * * In my experience, this board in one of the best moderated boards out there. If some of the rules occassionally seem arbitrary, I’m fine with it. Is there a better choice out there? Should there be a voting booth where the teeming minions can vote for banning or locking threads? Should we have **Lynn** _et al_ preview every single posting? Unmoderated forums full of trolls and spammers? I like SDMB just the way it is \ ---
**Author:** ![porcupine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac91a4/32.png) [@porcupine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/porcupine)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363/80 "2003-12-02T16:36:49Z")
I agree that if this rule is important enough to get people suspended for breaking it, as opposed to just warned, then the rule should be in the Pit Rules locked sticky. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-a-joke-thread/216363.md?page=5)