I’ve never argued that it wasn’t defined. Do try to keep up, chum.
You see, we’re arguing the wrong things. We both agree that the rule was mentioned. We both agree that it was discussed. We both agree that it was debated, to a point. We both agree that it was not properly defined, especially in that thread.
You see? A lot of agreement.
The bone of contention is something else. I was responding to the statement that the rule that got the two members suspended is not in that thread. I merely pointed out that it is, indeed, in that thread. Again, not that it was defined, merely that is is.
I find it interesting that you accuse me of being on drugs, considering only one of us is sputteringly irate. He who has sputtered hath lost his cool. Or something.
Now, retract your name-calling or I shall have to get nasty!
Remember: It’s just a suspension. Not the end of the world, not being banned. If I accidentally break a rule and lose posting privileges for a week, it’s just not that bad. Heck, I personally just lost posting privileges for five days – I shockingly went home for Thanksgiving. That’s almost a week right there.
Smackfu, it’s still humiliating and unfair. To be ignored for a week and then required to eat crow, when the transgression was debatable–but not debated–in the first place.
It’s only “humiliating” because suspensions have been so rare, and usually people get repeated warnings instead, which are quickly forgotten by all and often don’t work. I prefer a suspension policy.
I think it is quite clear from the intense arguing going on here that the definition of a “joke thread” is not at all clear, and that at least a couple people have been suspended for violations of that rule whose posts were 1) not clearly intended to break any rules and 2) not unambiguously in violation of the rule in the first place.
Given that the rule is not well defined anywhere (though it has been discussed), the rule is not listed in the “pit rules”, and that reasonable people are in considerable disagreement regarding all aspects of this rule, including its relevance, importance, applicability, and enforcement, I humbly suggest that the moderators should not act hastily to enforce that rule until at least some of these criticisms have been addressed.
However, I doubt sincerely that anything will change–people are still going to be suspended or banned for violating obscure rules of dubious relevance. One merely has to decide whether it is worth keeping abreast of the moderator’s concerns (note that Lynn’s threshhold regarding her tolerance of so-called joke threads has apparently changed significantly in recent days), and whether its worth abiding by those concerns to continue posting here.
I submit that if a moderator cannot execute his or her tasks with patience and a reasonable degree of tolerance, it is time for that moderator to step down and let others do the work.
But what, matt? No vehicles means no vehicles. That’s not like this situation at all, where the rule itself is fairly ambiguous. Your example is unambiguous, as the prohibition is for allvehicles.
Knorf, if you honestly feel that nothing will change, then there’s not much point in discussing it, is there? I understand your frustration, but let’s try to be reasonable about it. If a clear, explicit, unambiguous rule were posted in the Pit Rules sticky, covering joke threads and the like, wouldn’t that be some progress?
Suggestion to those who want the “No Joke” rule posted in the sticky:
How about working out the appropriate language for this “No Joke” rule? That would be constructive, if somewhat challenging, I would guess. Then it could be discussed.
As for myself, I confess that I roll my eyes when I read these complaints. Furthermore, I suspect that the Moderators and Administrators are aware of the distinction between accidental and deliberate infractions and proceed accordingly.
Yes it would. I’ll believe it when I see it. But it would be nice for it to be done for all rules which, when violated, lead to suspension and/or banning, and not just the joke-thread one.
Not exactly true; in one of the instances, the OP admitted it was a joke. In the other, it’s as possible it was as that it was not. Therefore in the former the moderator was aware of the distinction between accidental and deliberate and took what she deemed to be appropriate action.
All right, I’ve got a lot of thinking to do. First off, I’ve been screaming “NO JOKE THREADS IN THE PIT!” for some years now. I THOUGHT that I had put it in the Pit Rules sticky. Apparently not. However, I’ve closed enough threads with that admonition that I really expect people to know this by now. In fact, in quite a few threads, before I got there people were saying “Oh boy, guess Lynn hasn’t found this one yet.” I will be thinking about how to word the rule I post in the sticky. However, I’m NOT likely to change the rule.
There are a lot of people who frequent this forum, and there are a lot who frequent all forums BUT this forum. (Yes, there are people who avoid the Pit, for the most part.) The latter group might not have occasion to come across a post in a thread about “no joke threads in the pit.” In short, it’s certainly possible that the casual Pitizen who views maybe a couple of Pit threads per week would not see that admonition.
I humbly suggest that the two posters who have been suspended during this period of, well, transition from unclarity to clarity on the rule that got them suspended, should be given the benefit of the doubt and unsuspended.
He who has sputtered hath lost his cool. Or something.