Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum

[cereal_killer]

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.

Those are covered by the general forum guidelines. Site wide rules apply.

 

[Spinster]

Thanks to those whose care and thoughtfulness went into making this such a delightful forum.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks to those whose care and thoughtfulness went into making this such a delightful forum.

You are so welcome!

 

[Dante]

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!!

especially this:

• 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.)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've asked this before...no answer.

Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?

 

[Foxfyre]

I've asked this before...no answer.

Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?

I don't believe so Sun Devil. But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread. Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum. Or temporarily banned from USMB. Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.

I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've asked this before...no answer.

Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?

I don't believe so Sun Devil. But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread. Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum. Or temporarily banned from USMB. Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.

I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.

Most unfortunate.

There are certain posters, I would just as soon stay away from and keep out of any threads I might start.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've asked this before...no answer.

Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?

I don't believe so Sun Devil. But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread. Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum. Or temporarily banned from USMB. Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.

I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.

Most unfortunate.

There are certain posters, I would just as soon stay away from and keep out of any threads I might start.

Well put your threads in the SDZ and you can specify rules that will help some to keep them reined in. You're allowed three rules to specify how you want to run your thread.

 

[Gracie]

I've asked this before...no answer.

Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?

I don't believe so Sun Devil. But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread. Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum. Or temporarily banned from USMB. Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.

I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.

Most unfortunate.

There are certain posters, I would just as soon stay away from and keep out of any threads I might start.

Put them on ignore. If they do come to your thread, you won't see what they post.

 

[Wake]

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

That would require giving that member mod priviledges, I think.

 

[Pogo]

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

Well then, the OP would learn not to do that if he or she wanted an active discussion wouldn't he or she? And if that happens, what is that to anybody other than the OP? My understanding of the SDZ was a special forum for those WHO WANT to participate to be able to have some control over a discussion. I had pretty well given it up as an exercise in futility because of those who weren't going to allow that to happen if they could prevent it, but missed the challenge so tried it again today.

And alas, the thread is now locked.

Again it was a very good idea, but maybe its time has not yet come.

 

[Wake]

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.

 

[Wake]

cereal_killer , do you think this forum needs more bite to make sure the discussions are kept orderly?

If I were given very, very specific mod powers that pertained only to the thread I start in this forum (thread-banning), I can guarantee this forum will be a success. There are people here who really do want a structured and peaceful discussion. I would put an end to disorderly behavior in my threads quickly, and ensure that the conversations going on within the thread continue well.

This subforum is a good idea. There should be a way that the OPs in this subforum are given some leverage of their own (that must not be abused) to maintain the structured integrity of their threads. I would really appreciate hearing what you think on this CK.

 

[Foxfyre]

cereal_killer , do you think this forum needs more bite to make sure the discussions are kept orderly?

If I were given very, very specific mod powers that pertained only to the thread I start in this forum (thread-banning), I can guarantee this forum will be a success. There are people here who really do want a structured and peaceful discussion. I would put an end to disorderly behavior in my threads quickly, and ensure that the conversations going on within the thread continue well.

This subforum is a good idea. There should be a way that the OPs in this subforum are given some leverage of their own (that must not be abused) to maintain the structured integrity of their threads. I would really appreciate hearing what you think on this CK.

When this forum was first created, C_K assured us that the thread rules would be enforced. But given the determination of some to make sure the SDZ does NOT succeed, I know it quickly became a real pain in the butt for the mods.

I am thinking about whether I would want thread ban powers, but that does merit some consideration if the software would accommodate that. It certainly would relieve the pressure on the mods to restore order or to make the sometimes really rough decisions about whether infractions were severe enough to merit thread banning.

But given the fact that many OPs have no training in modding a forum or other such skills, I don't think the OP should have any power to add to a member's 'infraction score'. In other words, if somebody got kicked out of a SDZ thread, it probably shouldn't go on his/her permanent record.

 

[Wake]

If it were possible... that the thread-starter could only thread-ban posters only from his or her thread... that'd solve it in a heart-beat. If the software makes it possible, that would make all of this possible without putting a burden on staff, if at all.

 

[Wake]

In fact, if it is possible, I could the infraction part being removed, and simply giving thread-starters the option to thread-ban disruptive members in a pre-defined, legitimate way.

 

[Foxfyre]

If it were possible... that the thread-starter could only thread-ban posters only from his or her thread... that'd solve it in a heart-beat. If the software makes it possible, that would make all of this possible without putting a burden on staff, if at all.

I understand and I really appreciate the suggestion. I'm just struggling with whether I want even that small amount of power. But if we do initiate that capability for the OP, and the OP exercised it, again I would not want that kind of ban to go against a member's permanent record.

 

[Pogo]

ogue

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.

Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.

That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.

I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP. I was referring to actually controlling the flow of opinion -- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with. If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.

The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ. Assuming those rules get enforced.