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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That you are. I’m glad you have some semblance of self-reflection.
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.
A challenge for you: stop assuming that your own personal experience is normative.
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.
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]
I hope to challenge certain powers-that-be to rethink their currents policies and malicious enthusiasm for suspending and banning users.
Hello, Jackass. You do like knocking over strawmen, don’t you?
Straw man.
Oh, wait. [sarcasm]Yes. Yes, I do want chaos to reign. Who doesn’t?[/sarcasm]
:rolleyes:
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.
Your powers of observation are staggering.
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 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.
More strawmen. Knocking them over makes you feel mighty, doesn’t it?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 Lynnet al preview every single posting? Unmoderated forums full of trolls and spammers?
I like SDMB just the way it is <insert brown nose smiley>
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.
