Debate Now Vote for SDZ Rules -- Disagree Without Being Disagreeable

[Statistikhengst]

.

It's a shame that a section of this website has to be carved out for adults to behave like adults.

It would be nice if the opposite were the case.

.

AMEN.

That being said, we already have such a section, it is called the CDZ. The schnick-schnack with extra rules being provided by each OP individually is already proving to be very problematic as many members here have proven that they cannot concentrate themselves on more than 2 sentences without going full-metal jacket ballistic, much less read the OP all the way to the rules specific to the OP. ...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

We already have the CDZ, and now we need an SDF?

What's next, a forum with only multiple choice polls so that nobody posts any comments that might offend some thin skinned person?

100% agreement.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Couldn't agree more. I have participated in only one thread in this forum. It was Stat's. His OP was Conservatives have lower I.Q. than liberals. [emoji38]

There was zero debate. When anyone asked him a question that challenged his offensive and bigoted view, he either ignored it, or he said it didn't follow the debate rules he set....therefore, it was not worthy of consideration. [emoji38]

It's a joke. This is about little people who are afraid of genuine give and take and yet again wish to stifle dissenting views. Entire forum /unscrib...

I didn't respond to you because I have you on ignore and only am forced to read your input when I'm on tapatalk. You completely missed the point of my thread and you obviously chose to throw discernment out the window. Try again.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The purpose of this thread is to gather feedback on which SDZ rules will work for everyone and which ones won't. There are some that I believe everyone wants such as no ad homs but others are a little more contentious.

Please feel free to add your comments and suggestions for new rules and amendments to existing rules such as better wording, etc.

The SDZ has demonstrated a lot of promise and if we can agree on a common set of rules then that will take us all one step closer to making this a reality.

From my own perspective I like the idea of the SDZ to be a place where we can all come together to debate topics without having to worry about the noise level drowning out the valuable content.

TYIA

Did I miss the 'standard rules for site' apply? More rules you impose on how to discuss a topic, less point there is to doing so. This isn't the Harvard Debating Society or whatever.

 

[BlackSand]

Did I miss the 'standard rules for site' apply? More rules you impose on how to discuss a topic, less point there is to doing so. This isn't the Harvard Debating Society or whatever.

I would say it looks a lot like the Harvard Debating Society around here ... And just about as useless.
But ... You know it isn't the first time people here at USMB have gotten into a squawk about what rules they want and how to apply them.

It was the same people ... And they wanted more rules last time as well ... And they got it.

.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Did I miss the 'standard rules for site' apply? More rules you impose on how to discuss a topic, less point there is to doing so. This isn't the Harvard Debating Society or whatever.

I would say it looks a lot like the Harvard Debating Society around here ... And just about as useless.
But ... You know it isn't the first time people here at USMB have gotten into a squawk about what rules they want and how to apply them.

It was the same people ... And they wanted more rules last time as well ... And they got it.

.

My impression of the new group, site redesign, and all that is they're trying to invent a better wheel but trying out a triangle.

 

[BlackSand]

My impression of the new group, site redesign, and all that is they're trying to invent a better wheel but trying out a triangle.

Well you know the old adage about good intentions ... You cannot really complain about all the nanny state provisions.
The rest of us (myself at least) are too stupid to understand the dangers associated with freedom of choice.

Can I offer you some pineapple sorbet?

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The purpose of this thread is to gather feedback on which SDZ rules will work for everyone and which ones won't. There are some that I believe everyone wants such as no ad homs but others are a little more contentious.

Please feel free to add your comments and suggestions for new rules and amendments to existing rules such as better wording, etc.

The SDZ has demonstrated a lot of promise and if we can agree on a common set of rules then that will take us all one step closer to making this a reality.

From my own perspective I like the idea of the SDZ to be a place where we can all come together to debate topics without having to worry about the noise level drowning out the valuable content.

TYIA

Did I miss the 'standard rules for site' apply? More rules you impose on how to discuss a topic, less point there is to doing so. This isn't the Harvard Debating Society or whatever.

I go with "whatever"

 

[boedicca]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

This is exactly the type of catty post that the SDZ is trying to eliminate, but too many of the rules in the present SDZ threads are vague and confusing. Also, the OPs keep claiming one is violating the rules when one clearly is not....which to me is just like "flaming" yet in their rules they claim "no flaming". This seems like an OP controlled way to eliminate discussion when they can't come up with credible responses and totally unfair to the participant.

And, yes, I am not being forced to participate in the SDZ and if I find that the OPs are not playing fair, I will not participate. There are other forums that just need to have the rules enforced because they have become a lot like the Flame Zone where everyone has gotten into the habit of slinging poop and name-calling that it is now commonplace.

It is so amusing when people engage in the CATTY comments when trying to diss others for being CATTY.

Just sayin'.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

This is exactly the type of catty post that the SDZ is trying to eliminate, but too many of the rules in the present SDZ threads are vague and confusing. Also, the OPs keep claiming one is violating the rules when one clearly is not....which to me is just like "flaming" yet in their rules they claim "no flaming". This seems like an OP controlled way to eliminate discussion when they can't come up with credible responses and totally unfair to the participant.

And, yes, I am not being forced to participate in the SDZ and if I find that the OPs are not playing fair, I will not participate. There are other forums that just need to have the rules enforced because they have become a lot like the Flame Zone where everyone has gotten into the habit of slinging poop and name-calling that it is now commonplace.

It is so amusing when people engage in the CATTY comments when trying to diss others for being CATTY.

Just sayin'.

I think you misspelled "uppity"...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

Only in your wet dreams!

 

[Derideo_Te]

My problem is simple, the supposed ad hom.. the supposed definition and every other subjective rule assumes that there is in fact agreement that those things are the final arbiter. I don't know how many times I have seen either side claim a statement was something it was not simply because it was written by someone they disagreed with. The most common is the claim that someone is trolling or off topic for pointing out a related subject or clarifying something that simple was not true. Let the author decide what is and is not acceptable and then you decide if you want to participate based on those rules and restrictions. Every formal debate has rules and restrictions fr said debate. And they are not all uniform and the same.

My understanding of the purpose of the SDZ is that the OP will report to the mods if they believe something violates the rules. The mods will then make the decision based upon what has been stipulated for both the SDZ and the OP.

You are ignoring the fact that your laundry list is flawed. And that what you are trying to do is change the rules of the debate system to YOUR rules and ONLY your rules.

As a Reminder there is more then one dictionary and most of them have multiple meanings for a single word and they don't all agree. And then we have the wordsmiths, those that would play word games to change statements and arguments and facts. Or the people that claim any response they don't like is an an ad Hom attack. The ones that claim any response they don't like is off topic. Your list is a no more then you trying to set the rules for everyone.

Is that why I asked for additions to the list and alternate wordings in the OP?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

Grow up and drop it. This thread is not a place for the two of you to post petty attacks back and forth.

A little banter is allowed. Only if it gets out of hand then it becomes a problem. I have complete faith that Boedicca is more than adult enough to keep it within the limits.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let me refer you to the OP in the Guidelines for the SDZ.

• The OP (original poster) must be written out and in your own words i.e. NO copy/paste or simple links.
• The OP will clearly specify what additional rules will apply to the discussion. Such rules might request that no partisan labels such as Democrat, GOP, liberal, conservative, etc. be used. Or that no specific religion be mentioned. Or no specific person can be named. Or that the discussion is limited to a specific person, document, event, group, etc. Civil or uncivil, whatever the rules will be up to the OP.
• Members participating in this forum will be expected to follow the rules specified in the OP at all times. NO EXCEPTIONS.
• It is recommended that any rules specified in the OP be simple, easy to understand, kept to a reasonable minimum, and that they make sense. (If rules are too broad, vague, complicated, restrictive, or numerous, it will be impossible to moderate their intent and purpose.)

I read it before ... I don't need to reference it again.
Make a point or don't ... No need to be ambiguous.

.

The Guidelines provided recommendations for OP Rules. This thread is just expounding on those recommendations based upon what appeared to be common amongst many of the existing SDZ threads.

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[Mertex]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

This is exactly the type of catty post that the SDZ is trying to eliminate, but too many of the rules in the present SDZ threads are vague and confusing. Also, the OPs keep claiming one is violating the rules when one clearly is not....which to me is just like "flaming" yet in their rules they claim "no flaming". This seems like an OP controlled way to eliminate discussion when they can't come up with credible responses and totally unfair to the participant.

And, yes, I am not being forced to participate in the SDZ and if I find that the OPs are not playing fair, I will not participate. There are other forums that just need to have the rules enforced because they have become a lot like the Flame Zone where everyone has gotten into the habit of slinging poop and name-calling that it is now commonplace.

It is so amusing when people engage in the CATTY comments when trying to diss others for being CATTY.

Just sayin'.

I wasn't dissing you, obviously Deri didn't make a rule against cattiness in his thread, so your catty remark was totally acceptable. And, I am one of the first to return a catty remark with a catty remark......where it is not in violation. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post.

Cattiness is expected in the FZ, Badlands, etc., and now this SDZ, the OPs can make that part of the rules - "No flaming" - but what I was trying to point out was that some of the OPs have declared "No Flaming" but only point it out when an opposing political affiliation poster violates the rule making it totally unfair and biased and obviously very partisan.

 

[BlackSand]

The Guidelines provided recommendations for OP Rules. This thread is just expounding on those recommendations based upon what appeared to be common amongst many of the existing SDZ threads.

Does that clear it up for you?

The original guidelines are clear enough to start with and we don't need additional guidelines ... So I guess your point is made and accepted as pointless.

.

 

[I amso IR]

issuepedia.org/Structured_debate


Structured debate

Contents
[hide]

• 1 About
  • 1.1 FAQ
• 2 Implementations
• 3 Links
  • 3.1 Reference
  • 3.2 News
    • 3.2.1 version 2

About
A structured debate is a dispute resolution technique which maps the debate, i.e. breaks down the elements of a disagreement into the smallest arguable chunks ("points") so as to clearly indicate the dependencies between supporting points and the larger points they support or attack as well as the current status of each assertion (i.e. whether it has been refuted or not).

This helps to prevent a number of common problems with discussions of complex issues:

• accidentally (or deliberately) taking opposing points out of context, and answering them as if the context didn't exist
• the feeling of getting "lost" in the argument due to not knowing what has been settled and what remains to be discussed
• significant points falling by the wayside and remaining unanswered
• conflating multiple points into a single point, which leads easily to making logical fallacies

See project:Structured Debate for extensive design discussion.

FAQ

• Q: Isn't it authoritarian to make people follow rules, rather than just allowing open discussion?
  • A: The structure doesn't restrict what anyone can say; it just helps show whether they're making sense or not. If everyone using this system agrees that one and one equal three, or that the sun rises in the west, the system won't stop them from saying so. If nobody challenges those assertions, then they will stand as true.
• Q: Isn't this turning discussion into a contest, where participants will want their position to prevail at any cost?
  • A: The only sense in which this is a contest is that it is arguably a contest of ideas – not people. It does eliminate ideas by keeping track of which ones have been shown to have logical or factual flaws, but it does not attach any stigma or virtue to those who propose those ideas, whether those ideas prevail or are culled. Further, an idea which is culled may later be resurrected by new information; no idea is discarded or lost outright.

I sincerely hope the above may help in the discussion of the structured debate format. The term structured is in no way threating nor a challenge to free speech. It simply implies a fine tuning aspect to recognize specific points to be debated. Making reference to the South Indian Ocean makes little sense when discussing the tidal basin of the Port of Miami, Fl. The above was taken from Issuepedia.org/structured debate. And in my humble opinion, the OP has the right to dictate bounds within the structured debate format as that format differs from open debate unless the OP choses to discuss all related factors. It is his or her playpen and or sand box.

 

[320 Years of History]

Clicked "Other" in the poll to allow myself the option of having something to say in addition to the poll options if/when the occasion or need to do so presents itself.

 

[I amso IR]

I have not voted as it seems a total waste of time. Should I have the desire to enter a debate or discussion and the OP indicates they wish to talk apples only, then I will not attempt to involve oranges or pineapple for that matter. The term "structured" simply allows me to to refine my response to a smaller playing field. Certainly, for those who feel they must be in control and refuse to play by the OP's request, they may simply go on to bigger and better fish. The USMB is quite diverse, (as it's members are) in Forums and one should be able to find that which one desires, elsewhere, unless control is their own personal goal. Then all bets are off of the table. If choices are in order, my preference is we leave the format as is.