Whether or not everyone knows there are no joke threads in the Pit, Esprix did. He was being a jerk. He often is.
I think the suspension was an appropriate punishment for a non-violent offender who was knowingly and willingly violating a rule.
Objection! The witness cannot testify what the defendant knew. [/Law and Order mode]
Not sure I can explain why, but this just doesn’t sit well with me. If Lynn was overhasty in suspending Esprix, it doesn’t seem right that he should have to go around her in order to plead his case: his need to do that seems to point to a problem with how it’s being handled.
I think Lynn is feeling frustrated that the rule vs. joke threads isn’t being respected, and I empathize with her; I just don’t understand her unwillingness to take the very easy step (putting the rule in the rules thread) that would be most likely to end her frustration.
Daniel
I agree with this.
I grant entirely that the anal-retentives on the SDMB will nitpick it to death - myself included - but I don’t think it is unreasonable to look in a locked, one-post sticky for the Pit rules instead of reading thru six pages of “Discussion of Pit Rules”, even if it too is a sticky.
As I mentioned, I didn’t know that joke threads were verboten in the Pit. I am not exactly a newbie, and Esprix is even less so, and apparently he didn’t know either.
I think Daniel had a good suggestion on how hard feelings could be avoided. As far as possible in the Pit, that is.
Regards,
Shodan
At the risk of writing a “Me Too” post, which I know is forbidden because it’s in the succinct sticky “Pit Rules,” I also did not know until yesterday that Joke Threads are not to be made. Lynn, the reason I didn’t know is that I tend to avoid joke threads in the first place, because they’re most often incredibly stupid. If I read an OP and say, “God, what an attention whore,” I’m not going to stick with the thread and encounter your all-caps admonishment against joke threads. No, I’m going to close the damn thing.
Also, I do not keep up with the “Discussion of the Pit Rules” thread. I find that most people in threads such as those are just arguing semantics, bemoaning the fact that no language is precise enough to cover every instance of every near-violation. The OP, to me, is just such a pedant, and I only stuck with this thread because I just learned that Joke Threads are off limits.
I DO, however, read the sticky with… what, four or five rules? Might we be able to add the “No joke threads” rule there?
Quix
Lynn for the love of OG put the ‘No JOKES Rule’ in the Pit Rules sticky.
Which currently includes the rule
- No post parodies without links in the original post. Otherwise, I’m likely to close and/or delete the thread, and get royally pissed off at the thread starter.
Which implies that parodies with links are fine even if they are joke parodies.
and contains
More rules to come as I find that they’re needed.
Which leads me to ask at what point do you come to decide that the No Jokes rule is necessary?
Or is it that the rule isn’t really ‘No Jokes’ but is instead ‘No posts that are better suited in the MPSIMS forum’ in which case isn’t moving the offending post to the correct forum more common practice.
Furthermore, the rule that got Esprix and Ilsa_Lund suspended is NOT in the discussion thread!
The discussion there deals with “joke threads” in the sense of “threads where all we do is post dead-baby jokes or otherwise try to gross each other out.” Neither Esprix’s nor Ilsa’s thread fit that category.
(Let me also say that I don’t disagree just with the way the joke threads rule is being applied; I also disagree with the rule. What, we need our vitriol purified?)
Yeah, no argument here. Sometimes we do crazy things when we’re frustrated. Sort of how a few folks in this thread seem to be feeling right now.
[sub][btw, took me a minute to realize you changed your name. This one makes you look more… more human, I suppose, which means I’ll have to alter my supposed arguments to take into account that you’re a thinking, feeling human being. Drat! Curses!][/sub]
Really. You mean they weren’t suspended for posting joke threads in the pit? What were they suspended for, then?
Because that rule is in the discussion thread. As pointed out at least once in this discussion.
Was Esprix recently suspended?
dan, idiot, sweetie: the rule is REPEATED in the discussion thread, but it is never defined.
They were suspended for making a point with humor after Lynn had reached a breaking point.
Really? And How does “took me a minute to realize you changed your name” make you feel, dantheman? Does it help to know that I’m still just a well-programmed AI?
(Actually, I originally registered on the Straight Dope to ask a question about Mark Twain’s posthumously-written novel. I didn’t figure I’d hang around long, so I just used my real name in order to avoid having to think of something clever. Now that I’ve gotten addicted, I asked Lynn to change my name, and she graciously agreed. I’ve been very slack about using my sig file, as I said I would do.
Daniel
I’m afraid not, sir or madam; they were suspended for posting joke threads in the wrong forum, not for “making a point with humor.”
The posts in which the rule is discussed in the discussion thread occurred before these two members were suspended.
How does it make me feel? Wonderful! Stupendous! Excellent! For the first time, I know what it means to be alive!
Well-programmed AI gets me so happy. As you were! 
In that case, dantheman, I sincerely hope you’ve not seen this, if only because I love introducing it to people.
Daniel
[blinking blankly]Whaahunh?[/blinking blankly]
The rule, as such, is never defined; merely debated and repeated.
You’re just being pedantic, lissener. Either that or daft. Or you’re just playing around with me. Hey, wait a minute…
I did not say it was defined. I said that the rule was in the thread, and it is. It’s just not defined so much as mentioned; a fact that was pointed out earlier in this thread.
Artist Formerly Known as DanielWithrow: Neato link. Loved it. Applauded heavily. Dog catatonic.
The ENTIRE POINT of this thread is that it has never been defined. What kind of devil’s advocate bullshit games are you playing?
[sputter]I mean–PEDANTIC?–seriously, what brand of crack are you on? I say “It’s never been defined.” You say, “It’s right there in the thread.” I say, “Yeah, it’s mentioned, but LIKE I SAID, it’s never been defined.” You say, “Oh, now you’re being pedantic.”
What an asshole.