Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum

cereal_killer

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
3,106
Points
420
Location
Austin
Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum
  • Site wide rules apply.
  • Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
  • 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 state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times. 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.)
**This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**

**If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**

Have fun and Enjoy!!
 

Mad_Cabbie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
13,115
Reaction score
2,528
Points
245
Location
العراق
Thank you, getting sick of some of the snotty remarks and tired trash talk in some of the other forums.

Nice tie.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum
  • Site wide rules apply.
  • Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
  • 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.)
**This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**

**If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**

Have fun and Enjoy!!
You are going to flag is so we don't track in shit?
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
29,743
Reaction score
6,193
Points
280
Location
Sty
The OP is now the Moderator?

I anticipate CK lounging on a beach in front of a clear aqua-blue Caribbean sea with a rum spritzer and bikini clad servants ... congratulating himself on this strategic move...

.
 
OP
cereal_killer

cereal_killer

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
3,106
Points
420
Location
Austin
The OP is now the Moderator?

I anticipate CK lounging on a beach in front of a clear aqua-blue Caribbean sea with a rum spritzer and bikini clad servants ... congratulating himself on this strategic move...

.
I'm having trouble hearing you?!! What!!?? The waves are pretty loud out here, I'll get back to you when I can!!!!!!!!
 

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,543
Reaction score
20,096
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum
  • Site wide rules apply.
  • Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
  • 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.)
**This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**

**If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**

Have fun and Enjoy!!
Now that we have some experience with this forum, we might consider one additional component to the concept. We are getting bogged down in some discussions over definitions of words or terms. Please give some thought to a rule that when it is deemed advisable by the thread author, the OP will provide a definition of words or terms pertinent to the topic or something like that? This may be overreach, but a time or two I've seen where it could really be useful to settle a dispute and move the discussion forward.
 

Statistikhengst

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
45,564
Reaction score
11,747
Points
2,070
Location
deep within the statistical brain!!
Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum
  • Site wide rules apply.
  • Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
  • 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.)
**This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**

**If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**

Have fun and Enjoy!!
Now that we have some experience with this forum, we might consider one additional component to the concept. We are getting bogged down in some discussions over definitions of words or terms. Please give some thought to a rule that when it is deemed advisable by the thread author, the OP will provide a definition of words or terms pertinent to the topic or something like that? This may be overreach, but a time or two I've seen where it could really be useful to settle a dispute and move the discussion forward.

That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
 

Capstone

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
5,502
Reaction score
952
Points
290
stats said:
That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
stats said:
That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
The suggestion makes the OP the Lord High Decider of Dictionary Definitions and woe betide those that disagree for the wrath of the moderators shall be upon their heads.
 

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,543
Reaction score
20,096
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
stats said:
That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
Thanks. That was my point. Would you believe there are people who get their jollies by refusing to discuss the topic as defined and who insist on making the topic something else? And getting into a war over definitions and semantics is one of their favorite means of doing that.

I am loving the Structured Debate forum because it does give the thread author some control on how the discussion will be focused. Kudos to C_K and the mods for putting it together.

I just hope there are enough people at USMB who enjoy an intelligent discussion unhampered by the distractors and who will start participating. If not, it was a good experiment.
 

Capstone

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
5,502
Reaction score
952
Points
290
The suggestion makes the OP the Lord High Decider of Dictionary Definitions...
Who better to decide on the intended meanings of the terms in the OP than the person who intentionally used them to lay out the parameters of a structured debate?

Also, just because something is "deemed advisable" doesn't mean it's mandatory. Neither is anyone's particpation in any debate format he or she doesn't like. Those who like to bicker over semantics instead of addressing the issues are free to stick to the debates where such behavior is allowed (or at least not explicitly disallowed).

This isn't rocket science. The forum is clearly intended for exclusive debate. Accordingly, certain behaviors and tactics will be allowed in some threads and disallowed in others; and people can freely pick and choose among the debates they want to participate in (or not) on those grounds.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,820
Reaction score
9,874
Points
2,040
stats said:
That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
The suggestion makes the OP the Lord High Decider of Dictionary Definitions and woe betide those that disagree for the wrath of the moderators shall be upon their heads.

It makes true debate impossible.
 
OP
cereal_killer

cereal_killer

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
3,106
Points
420
Location
Austin

April

AngelsNDemons
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
33,048
Reaction score
18,615
Points
1,945
The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
:thup:
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
:clap:

A judgement worthy of Solomon!

Might I suggest that each rule must be succinct and limited to no more than 140 characters? Otherwise there could be paragraphs of definitions under a "single" rule.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,544
Reaction score
47,381
Points
2,190
The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
:clap:

A judgement worthy of Solomon!

Might I suggest that each rule must be succinct and limited to no more than 140 characters? Otherwise there could be paragraphs of definitions under a "single" rule.
The Twitter rule
 

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,543
Reaction score
20,096
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?

For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule. That takes up two rules. And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate. Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule? I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.

Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.
 

Osomir

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
164
Points
85
Location
United States
The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?

For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule. That takes up two rules. And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate. Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule? I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.

Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.
It would seem to make sense to have the 'no ad hominem' and 'stay on topic' aspects of discourse covered by the general sub-forum rules and more strictly moderated here than in other sub-forums; leaving you three rules that rest outside of the basics such as that.
 

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,543
Reaction score
20,096
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?

For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule. That takes up two rules. And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate. Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule? I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.

Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.
It would seem to make sense to have the 'no ad hominem' and 'stay on topic' aspects of discourse covered by the general sub-forum rules and more strictly moderated here than in other sub-forums; leaving you three rules that rest outside of the basics such as that.
That is always going to be a rule for my threads, but there are some who enjoy insulting other members and/or finding creative ways to do that. For them it is fun and games and sport. If they want a structured debate that includes that, I think they should be able to have that. I probably won't participate because such is not fun and games to me and usually annoys if not downright angers or frustrates me when it destroys what would otherwise have been an interesting discussion.

But each to their own. We can't have structured debate if everybody can't set the rules they want to have it.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top