Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm doing my best to address the point of the OP, by attempting to draw you back from your deflections to the point of the OP.

So show me the post where you did that and were shut down as you have accused me. Show me the post where I promoted hurting people as you have accused me. Let's see if you can support anything you are saying with other than vague waving of your hands at something nonspecific.

I already did, stop deflecting.

And I say that is a lie.

Fox, everyone can see my posts. Your deflections claiming that I did not make posts with quotes and examples is ludicrous.

Yes, and anybody with a brain can see how you are pretending to do what you are not doing. Anybody with a brain can see that you are refusing to support your accusations of me. And obviously you cannot or you would have by now. I'm pretty sure you won't address my post #384 any more honestly.

Ooops....Ad hom.....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

 

[RKMBrown]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

Yes. For example, if you post facts about libertarians in Derideo Dumbo's libertarian bashing threat that are contrary to his lies about libertarians, he will have you blocked from posting in his libertarian bashing thread.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

Yes. For example, if you post facts about libertarians in Derideo Dumbo's libertarian bashing threat that are contrary to his lies about libertarians, he will have you blocked from posting in his libertarian bashing thread.

Assumes facts not in evidence!

Debate Now - Is Structured Debate another Euphemism for Censorship Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

#265

DT: What exactly is the penalty for an "OP Rule" violation?

CK: We'd come in, delete the post and ask you to please respect the OP's rules. Now if you ignore the warning and continue we'll just remove your posting privileges in the forum (the SDF that is)
We're not looking to ban people off the site, we're just asking that people please respect the guidelines in there or be removed from the section. Just like the CDZ.
​

If you were "posting facts" you would not have been violating OP Rules like "no ad homs" and wouldn't have been banned.

FYI the same no ad hom rule applies in this thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

Yes. For example, if you post facts about libertarians in Derideo Dumbo's libertarian bashing threat that are contrary to his lies about libertarians, he will have you blocked from posting in his libertarian bashing thread.

Assumes facts not in evidence!

Debate Now - Is Structured Debate another Euphemism for Censorship Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

#265

DT: What exactly is the penalty for an "OP Rule" violation?

CK: We'd come in, delete the post and ask you to please respect the OP's rules. Now if you ignore the warning and continue we'll just remove your posting privileges in the forum (the SDF that is)
We're not looking to ban people off the site, we're just asking that people please respect the guidelines in there or be removed from the section. Just like the CDZ.
​

If you were "posting facts" you would not have been violating OP Rules like "no ad homs" and wouldn't have been banned.

FYI the same no ad hom rule applies in this thread.

Tissue?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

Yes. For example, if you post facts about libertarians in Derideo Dumbo's libertarian bashing threat that are contrary to his lies about libertarians, he will have you blocked from posting in his libertarian bashing thread.

It would be great if you could just say from the start.....

Poster XXX .....you are not welcome.
Poster YYY .....you are not welcome.
Poster ZZZ ......you are not welcome.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

Yes. For example, if you post facts about libertarians in Derideo Dumbo's libertarian bashing threat that are contrary to his lies about libertarians, he will have you blocked from posting in his libertarian bashing thread.

Assumes facts not in evidence!

Debate Now - Is Structured Debate another Euphemism for Censorship Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

#265

DT: What exactly is the penalty for an "OP Rule" violation?

CK: We'd come in, delete the post and ask you to please respect the OP's rules. Now if you ignore the warning and continue we'll just remove your posting privileges in the forum (the SDF that is)
We're not looking to ban people off the site, we're just asking that people please respect the guidelines in there or be removed from the section. Just like the CDZ.
​

If you were "posting facts" you would not have been violating OP Rules like "no ad homs" and wouldn't have been banned.

FYI the same no ad hom rule applies in this thread.

So if the rules say....facts only...no conclusions....you'd have to abide ?

 

[Ravi]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again until I get an answer....

What can the OP do about posts they don't like ?

Can the OP forbid particular members from posting and enforce it ?

Whine is about it I think.

 

[candycorn]

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?The OP has whatever rights the forum owners/mods gives to her or he.
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?There cannot be a structured debate. What you end up with is basically "letters to the editor"
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?Now the question is "should". Again, they have whatever rights the forum owners grant. Now should those owners grant such rights? Well, I think there is enough bandwidth to go around to where you can have this boutique, the more raucous political forums, and the badlands for the free-style humiliation perverts. I won't use the word "troubled" because the forum is what it is. What I would like to see is some sort of time-limit for how long a thread will be open and, after the debate, let the mods decide if the OP defended their thesis with a simple pass/fail. Once the pass/fail is tallied, next to their name where it lists such frankly unimportant statistics would be Structured Debate pass/fail with a a simple ratio listed of 1/1 if they defended one and started one. Or 0/1, 0/2 or 0/3 if they failed to defend. I guess the stakes would be that you can make your own rules but you can't guarantee the outcome and, by such, you wind up having this albatross if you can't defend a point your brought up.
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?Again, whatever powers they get are granted to them.
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?Penalties are of no concern. Simple removal of posts (we've all had it done to us) are the purview of the mods.
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?Now you've hit on something. USMB was fine the way it was. I'm not sure why it changed but that is their end of the business. Mine/ours is to supply commentary and opinions. It's a good relationship. When you wind up removing commentary and opinions--not based on violating forum rules but on a subset that can apparently change and are left to selective enforcement, the relationship changes

 

[RKMBrown]

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?The OP has whatever rights the forum owners/mods gives to her or he.
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?There cannot be a structured debate. What you end up with is basically "letters to the editor"
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?Now the question is "should". Again, they have whatever rights the forum owners grant. Now should those owners grant such rights? Well, I think there is enough bandwidth to go around to where you can have this boutique, the more raucous political forums, and the badlands for the free-style humiliation perverts. I won't use the word "troubled" because the forum is what it is. What I would like to see is some sort of time-limit for how long a thread will be open and, after the debate, let the mods decide if the OP defended their thesis with a simple pass/fail. Once the pass/fail is tallied, next to their name where it lists such frankly unimportant statistics would be Structured Debate pass/fail with a a simple ratio listed of 1/1 if they defended one and started one. Or 0/1, 0/2 or 0/3 if they failed to defend. I guess the stakes would be that you can make your own rules but you can't guarantee the outcome and, by such, you wind up having this albatross if you can't defend a point your brought up.
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?Again, whatever powers they get are granted to them.
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?Penalties are of no concern. Simple removal of posts (we've all had it done to us) are the purview of the mods.
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?Now you've hit on something. USMB was fine the way it was. I'm not sure why it changed but that is their end of the business. Mine/ours is to supply commentary and opinions. It's a good relationship. When you wind up removing commentary and opinions--not based on violating forum rules but on a subset that can apparently change and are left to selective enforcement, the relationship changes

Ayup... for example when libertarians get banned from a libertarian bashing thread, for defending facts about libertarians that disagree with the OP's opinions about libertarians.

 

[Osomir]

I rather like the idea of a structured debate forum. Some may like USMB the way it is, but under current structures the level of conversation in most threads is fairly low level, trolling tends to be high, personal attacks high, un-sourced claims high, etc. Even when you can engage someone such engagement usually gets drowned out in a sea of one liners. In short, there is currently no real incentive for the generation of higher quality discourse wtihin these boards. Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB. It is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

 

[RKMBrown]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB, Instead it is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

Exactly. For example, Derideo_Te's libertarian bashing thread, in which Derideo_Te used this forum as a soapbox against Libertarians.

 

[Ravi]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB, Instead it is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

Exactly. For example, Derideo_Te's libertarian bashing thread, in which Derideo_Te used this forum as a soapbox against Libertarians.

I took that thread as a spoof of FF's thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

I rather like the idea of a structured debate forum. Some may like USMB the way it is, but under current structures the level of conversation in most threads is fairly low level, trolling tends to be high, personal attacks high, un-sourced claims high, etc. Even when you can engage someone such engagement usually gets drowned out in a sea of one liners. In short, there is currently no real incentive for the generation of higher quality discourse wtihin these boards. Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

Agreed. Perhaps if there were two structured debate forums. One for the threads designed to trash groups and another for reasoned debate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB, Instead it is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

Exactly. For example, Derideo_Te's libertarian bashing thread, in which Derideo_Te used this forum as a soapbox against Libertarians.

Your inability to rationally defend Libertarianism without resorting to vulgar ad homs is your problem.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB, Instead it is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

Exactly. For example, Derideo_Te's libertarian bashing thread, in which Derideo_Te used this forum as a soapbox against Libertarians.

I took that thread as a spoof of FF's thread.

Damn!!!

You weren't supposed to tell them that!

 

[RKMBrown]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB, Instead it is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

Exactly. For example, Derideo_Te's libertarian bashing thread, in which Derideo_Te used this forum as a soapbox against Libertarians.

I took that thread as a spoof of FF's thread.

I figured as much as well.. but he's being stone faced about it so....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

If only that was how it actually worked.

Instead we have those who want to use it as a soapbox where only their opinion is allowed.

We have others who violate the ad hom rules and then whine because they weren't allowed to post puerile insults.

The concept of the SDF is a great one. The execution leaves a lot to be desired and no, that is not the fault of USMB, Instead it is the fault of those who are clueless as to the actual meaning of the term "structured discussion" and who insist upon being allowed to change the rules to suit themselves. Take that out and we might actually get somewhere.

Exactly. For example, Derideo_Te's libertarian bashing thread, in which Derideo_Te used this forum as a soapbox against Libertarians.

Well, in that case there is a chance for rational discussion.

The only problem is that the premise really never was defined in a way that was consistent with the thread title.

Someone can bash libertarians all they want....to what end....they really think libertarians will change their minds ?

The same can be said for liberals.

While I am interested, I am thinking of limiting my participation to those threads where information is shared that provides new perspective.

The libertarian bashing thread has done NOTHING like that and the constant cry to "defend libertarianism (or any other ideology)" is of no value. Just don't participate in the thread and see what happens....which will be nothing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I rather like the idea of a structured debate forum. Some may like USMB the way it is, but under current structures the level of conversation in most threads is fairly low level, trolling tends to be high, personal attacks high, un-sourced claims high, etc. Even when you can engage someone such engagement usually gets drowned out in a sea of one liners. In short, there is currently no real incentive for the generation of higher quality discourse wtihin these boards. Posting genuine, well thought out and sourced replies (the foundation of robust conversation) takes time, and being able to control the parameters of discussion creates a platform in which that time is less likely to be drowned out. I don't think this sub-forum will be for everyone, but I can see how it would be beneficial for those who want to escape the frivolity of some of the other sub-forums.

Agreed. Perhaps if there were two structured debate forums. One for the threads designed to trash groups and another for reasoned debate.

There is a Clean Debate Zone. My only issue there is that nobody is debating (well almost nobody).

I think that forum should have debaters and a designated (and trusted) debate judge who can basically comment on any post as being debate worthy or not and who can basically drop people who are just clouding the thread with B.S.

I would find that very interesting.