Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum

Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by cereal_killer, Feb 27, 2015.

  1. Derideo_Te
    Offline

    Derideo_Te Je Suis Charlie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Messages:
    20,464
    Thanks Received:
    7,287
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Ratings:
    +12,090
    If you give the OP the power to censor those that contribute to a thread for no other reason that that the OP doesn't like the opinion of the poster then Pogo is correct that all you have is a soapbox and not a discussion.

    There is no point in calling this forum "structured discussion" if the OP can ban dissenting opinions.

    Without dissenting opinions there is no discussion that merits the term.

    For example an SDZ thread was created that had a rule that "banned" all posters with clown avis because the OP wanted to just have a "discussion" about the passengers in the clown car.

    Fair enough, the OP rule was that it wasn't an "structured discussion" at all, just a place for members who shared the same political leaning to state why one rightwing candidate was preferable to another.

    I don't have a problem with that as long as no one mistakes that for a "structured discussion" because it wasn't.

    But what it highlighted was the need for a place where opinions could be expressed amongst a group of like minded posters.

    And that might well be what is needed and what FF was trying to do herself.

    The current SDZ is set up in a way that if FF wants to start a thread and specifically states that anyone who disagrees with her "definitions" is excluded from participating then sobeit. Her thread, her rules, she gets to say whatever she likes in her thread and if anyone breaks that rule she reports them and their posts are removed.

    No additional powers need be granted to the OP.

    And yes, SDZ threads limited to like minded posters are not true "structured discussions" but if there is a need for them then let's let them happen. Who knows, it might even reduce some of the incivility around here if posters have a place to express themselves without fear of being contradicted irrespective of how bizarre those opinions might be.

    At least it might be worth experimenting with, cereal_killer. Give it a try for a couple of months and if it doesn't work you can shut it down again. No harm, no foul?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,444
    Thanks Received:
    13,704
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,600
    Again I have NEVER reported anybody ever, anywhere, for disagreeing with me. I would guess that at least 90% of the USMB members would not do that. I have not and will not EVER report or discourage anybody for disagreeing with me. But I have and will enforce rules when given authority or ability to do that.

    But even if somebody did make a rule that nobody could disagree, how does that harm or hurt anybody else? If somebody wants a thread with rules that keeps the trolls at bay, how does that hurt anybody? Why is it so important to be able to disrupt, derail, or just generally make a mess of a thread? Who is on a power trip? The person who wants ability to have a structured discussion free of the childish and/or mean spirited trolls? Or the person who demands that this be allowed?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2015
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,444
    Thanks Received:
    13,704
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,600
    I don't know how many USMB members would like a forum where intelligent discussion could take place. But if there is a chance that there is enough of us to make the effort worth while, I sure would appreciate such a forum. Like Gracie said, there really does need to be at least one place the trolls aren't allowed to derail, disrupt, or destroy the intent of a thread no matter how much they disrespect the OP or the subject matter. I had high hopes for the SDZ but unless enough folks are interested in making it work, there isn't much point. I still would like to see it work.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,444
    Thanks Received:
    13,704
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,600
    The CDZ has its own rules. I am arguing for the SDZ in this context which is a much different thing than the CDZ. The SDZ is not exactly formal debate--you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed :)--but it is close enough to be a different kind of and interesting exercise IF the trolls are not allowed to destroy the threads. We need to figure out how to accomplish that without overworking the mod staff.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2015
  5. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,295
    Thanks Received:
    11,313
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,671

    Sez who?

    Three rules, if they are practical, are enough to facilitate an adult debate.

    Are you saying that you need MORE rules in order to be able to debate?

    :wtf:

    :lmao:
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,444
    Thanks Received:
    13,704
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,600
    I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,295
    Thanks Received:
    11,313
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,671

    Oh, really?

    Are those not your words?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,444
    Thanks Received:
    13,704
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,600
    How about putting those words in their full context. That would be much appreciated. Taking words out of context or separating them from any qualifying statements and presenting them as something different from what the member obviously intended is quite dishonest you know.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    90,000
    Thanks Received:
    13,595
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +42,058
    Bingo. You have to wonder if people grasp their own words.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,295
    Thanks Received:
    11,313
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,671

    Well, ok, if you insist, but in context of the entire text, nothing changes:


    So, there was nothing dishonest about quoting only the sentence that was applicable. Nothing on either side of the statement changes the claim you made at all, in any way shape or form. The bolded can easily stand completely on it's own. Your claim that the SDZ is not exactly formal debate is also quite questionable, but you have every right to your opinion, of course.

    The only person being dishonest here is you, for having claimed you never said what I quoted in the bolded in the first place. You wrote:


    Which is, of course, total bullhockey. You did say that, very exactly, and I have quoted it now TWICE. Need it bolder and in 7 point to refresh your memory, or what?

    So, I will ask again: Do you really think that three rules is not enough for having a real debate? How many rules do you think are necessary?
     

Share This Page