Having asked three times in this thread:
Maybe I can it answered as its own thread.
I’ve almost stayed entirely out of the kinder-and-gentler Pit brouhaha, and generally don’t indulge in asking for fine points on board rules, but I would appreciate a response here myself.
In case it helps get the question answer more quickly, here is a link to the masterpiece itself.
Since the telemarketer rant was not against an SDMB poster but someone from the outside, it’s okay.
As BJMoose said, [It’s ok to say, “Mother Teresa is a cunt”, but not ok to say, “BJMoose is a cunt”]*
*[sub]Oh, it was a question? Color me confused.[/sub]
Actually, it was. See the link in the opening paragraph.
At the time it was posted, it was a pitting of a current poster.
I found this quote from that thread interesting:
I think that the repeated C&T references were put in simply so that the target might absorb SOMETHING from that rant. Small words that she might be familiar with, repeated, so that she’s likely to remember them five minutes from now. Out of a scale of 1 to 10, I’d give that an 11.—Lynn Bodoni, in post #28, on the use of cunt and tit references in the rant, posted 12/17/2000
That was then. This is now.
Well, fuck me!* It’s been much to long since I read the rant. I apologize for jumping to assumptions. Assumptions make an ass out of … well me.
*[sub]Oops, I’m gonna get a demerit over that one![/sub]
Wouldn’t it clearly not be allowed, since he called a poster a cunt, which was a specific example shown to not be allowed?
Would it be allowed if he hadn’t called her a cunt as one of the insults? That’s a good question.
It is probably the finest cyber eviscerating I’ve ever seen, superbly crafted, funny, brutal, and skewers the target in delightful fashion. It got kudos from at least one current admin…Ms. Bodoni . I haven’t read that whole thread so I don’t know if any other staff praised it or not. Ed first said rants, even obscene rants, that made him laugh would probably not be punished…then he backtracked on it…and then he said nothing about that specific post when asked repeatedly about it. I, for one, am not certain what ruling, if any, would be made on that rant if it were posted today. Yes, it violates the cunt rule, but it has redeeming qualities–hell, it’s a SDMB Hall of Fame rant.
So, would Ed Zotti warn Cervaise for it today? Oh–any somebody better make sure** Zotti **realizes that post was years ago, or he just might issue his second bad call of the new rule era.
Man, I had forgotten how good that thread was. That right there was why it was cool to have a Pit forum: when you couldn’t get through to some dullard in GQ or GD, you took them to the Pit and peeled their paint off with blistering rhetoric and mockery. Good times…
But who knows? Maybe the next Pitting of someone’s little kitty for being such a cute little scrunchy-wunchy, yes you are, who’s a little scrunchy?? will be just as entertaining, with the added bonus of not hurting anyone’s feelings.
(I just read a Pit thread by someone complaining that their computer fan is too loud and it made me sad. Kind of like watching Muhammed Ali get held down and bitch-slapped by a girl scout.)
I am reading the thread (can’t remember if I participated in it way back when) but what is striking to me- in the other thread here about the rule change, there’s been a few (very) posters who claim they’re happy about the changes. Odd, it is, to see them in that thread applauding.
That thread was why I joined.
My understanding of the new rules is that wouldn’t be allowed. They kept the part about not allowing non-Pittings, which is oddly ironic since who can tell what a Pitting is anymore.
Under the old rules, I thought the difference between a rant in MPSIMS and a rant in the Pit was that in the Pit, there was supposed to be “reasoned vitriol” inappropriate for another forum. If the reasoned vitriol part is gone, what’s the difference between a rant in MPSIMS and a rant in the Pit? Why wouldn’t the cutesy rants be allowed in the Pit?
On an unrelated note, I asked this in the other thread, and I’ll try again here. Are self-Pits allowed under the new rules?
I’m with ya, Giraffe. climbs stepladder to pat Giraffe on the shoulder
The OP’s question is obviously important to me, but it’s worth keeping in mind that that thread is exploding like gangbusters, and it is hardly the only source of criticisms, complaints, concerns, and questions that are flooding toward Ed Zotti. He’s being picked at from all sides. Justifiably so in this case, yes, but it’s still the death of a thousand cuts. Not only that, there’s also the fact that the precise nature of these complaints, criticisms, etc. are not all identical. We’ve all got subtly different arguments, and he might rightfully feel that he has logically defused one or two of the more extreme complaints tossed at him. People are upset by the changes, and they’re voicing that upset in myriad ways, and even if the change was a good idea (which it’s not), there’s always going to be a certain segment that gets into a huff for no good reason.
I can hope that the number of complaints, and the fact that they’re coming from such distinguished sources, might start to weigh on him. But even if that works, it’s still going to take time for him to grasp the nature of the blunder. The OP’s question cuts to the essence of the dispute, but we still need to give the man time.
It’s a good OP, and I’m adding my share. But for my part, I’ve voiced my first complaint about board administration in my six and a half years here, and now it’s best to wait.
Exactly the sort of response that I’d expect.
Do we want to have a community where a thread like that is lauded for the genius it is? Or do we want one of the mods to storm in, lock it, and remind the OP not to be so “abusive” in the future, on pain of future banning if he doesn’t comply?
I choose the former, without question, hesitation, or doubt.
Which would incline me to think he should only address the most cogent, intelligent, articulate ones. I have noted before that Ed’s approach seems to be to pick the dumbest, most shallow criticisms and respond to them.
The answer to this thread, ISTM is obviously “no,” though I suspect that only minor editing would be needed to keep the rant in line with the new rules. It’s a very simple question, and easily addressed. But it is also a thorny one. The only real question is whether the Admins will have the courage of their convictions to come in here and make a decision.
Yes, of course this thread would be allowed. It’s a rant. Rants are what the Pit is for. I see where Cervaise calls her a cunt a couple times. We would probably have edited this out and asked that in the future he refrain from directing this expression at other posters. Shithead, however, is in the same league as bitch and asshole and is OK, provided it’s not used to excess. There’s a bit about eyeballs and grapefruit spoons, which is pretty graphic, but it’s part of an absurdist hypothetical; he’s not wishing this on her. (If he did wish this on her, we’d certainly object to that.) Likewise the part about getting beaten to death with a jack handle. The bit about sucking on syphilitic donkey cocks … no getting around it, that’s an obscene remark directed at another poster. It’s also so purposely ridiculous that even the target probably laughed; that takes out a lot of the sting. So we probably would have said: Cervaise, that was a bad, bad thing to say. Don’t do that again.
so probably yes, but may be no, and surelly would have parts of it censored.
And future similar rants will depend for their survival on the mood of the moderator on the day they are posted (since their sense of humor is involved).
Is that correct?
Ed, I don’t much like the response per se – because I don’t like the new Pit rules – but thanks for responding to this. For my money, any discussion of the new rules could not take place in any meaningful way without using Cervaise’s classic rant as an exhibit.