Thing is, one of those threads was already cornfielded when I posted and the other is from 2010. The third link is not a thread but a profile.
Cases such as this should be exempt from the note.
Yeah, that’s fair. I didn’t follow the links, just broke them, and should have done more due diligence. My apologies for snarking at you.
No problem. Being a fucking hall monitor can’t be easy. 
Especially not with a crew of
for users. 
What if the Troll thread name was something neutral like “Posters to Watch For”, would the link to that thread title still constitute an insult because it’s a pit thread meant to point out assholes? I could see it either way, since the thread itself is an insult but because of the neutral title the actual insults are still technically contained in the Pit thread.
I thought we’re allowed to link a thread in the Pit as long as it has a neutral name. So, if there’s a thread in, say, GD, and I make a statement like “well, in my book, all lefthanded people are poopyheads” and some lefty pits me with a thread called “I pit RitterSport”, are they allowed to link to the post I made?
My understanding is that you can. People have to go to the thread and see the insults that reside there.
But linking to the troll thread is calling them a troll.
If we are not allowed to link to “I pit RitterSport” threads, then I’d advocate for getting rid of the rule for having insulting thread titles.
Is the user notified if someone links to their profile, like if we use the @ link?
If someone wants to link my profile to test, go for it.
When you @TroutMan somebody in a thread they’ll get a notification in their icon dropdown and on their user notifications page. Whether that triggers emails to them is subject to that user’s notification settings.
Likewise different browsers have different ways of reacting to the existence of pending notifications. Some of that is controlled on their Discourse user notification panel and some on their browser settings.
If you want to say bad things about TroutMan without any chance of alerting them, then use something other than the leading @. Bolding was the community standard back in the vBulletin days and should be recognizable to most everyone for what it represents.
Of course that evil TroutMan can find this post simply by doing a vanity search for “TroutMan”. There’s no defeating that except by clever typos like TruotMan and vague allusions to green fishy troublemakers.
Right, but I’m asking about linking to their profile like this: link to LSLGuy’s profile.
Do you see a notification the same way you would if I @'d you?
No, I did NOT get a notification from your link just above. But I did get a notification that you’d replied to my post. So you’re still busted!
This is correct. So long as the thread title isn’t insulting another poster, it’s okay to link from a Pit thread.
The Pit thread that happens to be on top at the moment I’m composing this is about Fox News and the thread title contains insulting language directed at Fox.
But I can put the link to that OP together with an anodyne and misleading title: Everyone Loves Cute Kitten Pictures. And here’s the same url as a blank innocuous Click here to read about those so-and-so’s.
A hover-over of either will display the actual URL which includes the insulting language directed at Fox.
I’m not trying to salami slice here to sneak past the intent of the rules. Just pointing out ways people can create links to threads or posts that aren’t the default obvious kind when there’s already a problematic title in the thing they’re referencing.
Whether these maneuvers violate the letter or the intent is something for the mods to tell me/us.
The problem with Pit thread titles isn’t when you link to the Pit from elsewhere; it’s when you link elsewhere from the Pit. In that case, it shows the Pit thread title under the linked post, and it doesn’t matter if you have a naked link or hide it behind some generic link text. The title restrictions are to avoid that.
I’ll create a link to this post from the Trolls R Us thread as a demo.
Understood.
That album will always have a special place in my heart. You see, my mother was a Bozoette.
That’s not the issue, though. The problem is that when you start a Pit thread that’s titled, “Poster X sucks,” and in that Pit thread, you have a link to another, non-Pit thread where Poster X is doing something sucky. When you do that, a link is automatically generated in the non-Pit thread linking back to the Pit thread, and the link will say, “Poster X sucks.” Thus, the rule against insulting posters outside of the Pit is circumvented.
If the Pit thread is titled “Fox News sucks,” then linking isn’t a problem, because you can insult Fox News (or CNN, or Rupert Murdoch, or any other corporation or public figure) as much as you want outside of the Pit. It’s only when the title of a thread is an insult to another poster on this board that this rule kicks in.
Thanks for the detailed exposition.
I believe we’re not supposed to have threads that insult posters in a thread title anymore, so you’d think this would be a moot point.
But if the thread is something insulting that doesn’t name a poster, say a trolls thread, or maybe a hypothetical thread titled “SDMB Posters Saying Stupid Things”, that insult can still be tagged outside of the Pit regardless.