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

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that derailing and trolling are not good.

That is why we have a CDZ and have no need for a SDZ.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Actually the difficulty is exactly the opposite of this: "The difficulties expressed in this thread are centered more around the inability for others to actually dictate their standards to everyone." A structured debate allows the OP to have his/her say without any reasonable rebuttal.

That is fine for those who want a propaganda forum.

It is not reasonable for the Board generally.

It isn't the "general board" ... It is the Structured Debate section.
If a member cannot fall within the parameters set by the OP ... They are in no way required to participate.

There are no restrictions as to who can open a thread ... Nor their political affiliation.
The difficulty surrounds the inability for members to use the usual tactics to derail or flood a thread with nonsense ... And I can certainly see how that would upset some people.

.

Nothing at all to do with "derailing threads with nonsense". That rule already exists in USMB and doesn't need to be handed over to the OP. Anyone can contact the mods and report a post as an attempt to derail a thread.

The SD is just a transparent attempt to give the OP the power to dictate censorship "rules" that nullify legitimate criticism. If you want I can link you to examples of that actually happening in this forum.

Why would you want to give anyone the power to claim that your definition of your position is null and void and that only the OP's farcical definition of your position is "legitimate"? In essence you are giving the OP the right to deliberately mischaracterize you and if you object then you run the risk of incurring a moderator infraction.

Would you grant me that power to dictate the definition of your positions? Yes or no? Because if the answer is no then you are agreeing that the SD is granting the power to censor and that is just downright unAmerican. If your answer is yes then you are in the wrong messageboard entirely because USMB explicitly states on every page that "we continue to encourage the right to free speech".

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about a Refereed Debate Zone with agreed upon terms and definitions and an agreed upon Thread Referee, whose decisions are arbitrary and binding? No biting, spitting, gouging, genitalia-free zone? This would be hard for Jeri and Hollie to be decent, but oh girl would it be fun to watch from the sidelines.

Does God exist? Pro: Jeremiah Con: Hollie Thread Referee: Paperview

 

[BlackSand]

Nothing at all to do with "derailing threads with nonsense". That rule already exists in USMB and doesn't need to be handed over to the OP. Anyone can contact the mods and report a post as an attempt to derail a thread.

The SD is just a transparent attempt to give the OP the power to dictate censorship "rules" that nullify legitimate criticism. If you want I can link you to examples of that actually happening in this forum.

Why would you want to give anyone the power to claim that your definition of your position is null and void and that only the OP's farcical definition of your position is "legitimate"? In essence you are giving the OP the right to deliberately mischaracterize you and if you object then you run the risk of incurring a moderator infraction.

Would you grant me that power to dictate the definition of your positions? Yes or no? Because if the answer is no then you are agreeing that the SD is granting the power to censor and that is just downright unAmerican. If your answer is yes then you are in the wrong messageboard entirely because USMB explicitly states on every page that "we continue to encourage the right to free speech".

No one is limiting anyone's rights to free speech ... Members are free to say whatever they want at USMB.
Members just cannot say whatever they want everywhere at USMB ... And if that threatens a member, then they can go sit in a corner and cry about it or find more productive ways to debate.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Far Right are a buncha tweekers?

Twerkers??? What's that?!?!?!

 

[Statistikhengst]

How about a Refereed Debate Zone with agreed upon terms and definitions and an agreed upon Thread Referee, whose decisions are arbitrary and binding? No biting, spitting, gouging, genitalia-free zone? This would be hard for Jeri and Hollie to be decent, but oh girl would it be fun to watch from the sidelines.

Does God exist? Pro: Jeremiah Con: Hollie Thread Referee: Paperview

Interesting idea.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How about a Refereed Debate Zone with agreed upon terms and definitions and an agreed upon Thread Referee, whose decisions are arbitrary and binding? No biting, spitting, gouging, genitalia-free zone? This would be hard for Jeri and Hollie to be decent, but oh girl would it be fun to watch from the sidelines.

Does God exist? Pro: Jeremiah Con: Hollie Thread Referee: Paperview

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nothing at all to do with "derailing threads with nonsense". That rule already exists in USMB and doesn't need to be handed over to the OP. Anyone can contact the mods and report a post as an attempt to derail a thread.

The SD is just a transparent attempt to give the OP the power to dictate censorship "rules" that nullify legitimate criticism. If you want I can link you to examples of that actually happening in this forum.

Why would you want to give anyone the power to claim that your definition of your position is null and void and that only the OP's farcical definition of your position is "legitimate"? In essence you are giving the OP the right to deliberately mischaracterize you and if you object then you run the risk of incurring a moderator infraction.

Would you grant me that power to dictate the definition of your positions? Yes or no? Because if the answer is no then you are agreeing that the SD is granting the power to censor and that is just downright unAmerican. If your answer is yes then you are in the wrong messageboard entirely because USMB explicitly states on every page that "we continue to encourage the right to free speech".

No one is limiting anyone's rights to free speech ... Members are free to say whatever they want at USMB.
Members just cannot say whatever they want everywhere at USMB ... And if that threatens a member, then they can go sit in a corner and cry about it or find more productive ways to debate.

.

"Members just cannot say whatever they want everywhere at USMB ..."​

Don't we already have the Lounge forum and the CDZ for those purposes?

"And if that threatens a member, then they can go sit in a corner and cry about it or find more productive ways to debate."​

Doesn't that nullify the entire purpose of having a debate in the first place?

In essence you just agreed that USMB should have a propaganda forum and that Jake was right that the SD should just be renamed as such.

But that begs the question. How would USMB then be any different from all of the other hundreds of propaganda forums on the internet?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I make a motion that the SDZ be dropped in favor of a RDZ, which would be much more fun and worthwhile.

 

[BlackSand]

In essence you just agreed that USMB should have a propaganda forum and that Jake was right that the SD should just be renamed as such.
But that begs the question. How would USMB then be any different from all of the other hundreds of propaganda forums on the internet?

USMB is a lot more than one section in one forum division.
If a member feels the need to redefine the intentions of the Structured Debate section ... And possibly rename it to suit their desires and definition ... Then that pretty much explains why they have a problem with it.

Perhaps that member would be better suited to stay within the realm of their imaginary world.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In essence you just agreed that USMB should have a propaganda forum and that Jake was right that the SD should just be renamed as such.
But that begs the question. How would USMB then be any different from all of the other hundreds of propaganda forums on the internet?

USMB is a lot more than one section in one forum division.
If a member feels the need to redefine the intentions of the Structured Debate section ... And possibly rename it to suit their desires and definition ... Then that pretty much explains why they have a problem with it.

Perhaps that member would be better suited to stay within the realm of their imaginary world..

What a comment on an imaginary world, which does not exist except in your mind. Opposition exists in all things. It is a pattern of life that can lead to great things. The Constitution, for example; the 13th Amendment, for example. The Magna Carta, for example. The USMB is better, in general, because of opposition.

BS, if you wanted a Protected Propaganda Zone, according to your desire for an OP Arbitrator, then ask for it. Don't beat around the question.

 

[BlackSand]

What a comment on an imaginary world, which does not exist except in your mind. Opposition exists in all things. It is a pattern of life that can lead to great things. The Constitution, for example; the 13th Amendment, for example. The Magna Carta, for example. The USMB is better, in general, because of opposition.

BS, if you wanted a Protected Propaganda Zone, according to your desire for an OP Arbitrator, then ask for it. Don't beat around the question.

You can leave all the condemnation out of it ... I didn't say I wanted one thing or another.
It just puzzles me why people seem to have a problem with anything they cannot control ... Signs of personal insecurity and weakness at best.

But hey ... More power to them ... And I hope they are able to find a more refreshing inner peace some day.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In essence you just agreed that USMB should have a propaganda forum and that Jake was right that the SD should just be renamed as such.
But that begs the question. How would USMB then be any different from all of the other hundreds of propaganda forums on the internet?

USMB is a lot more than one section in one forum division.
If a member feels the need to redefine the intentions of the Structured Debate section ... And possibly rename it to suit their desires and definition ... Then that pretty much explains why they have a problem with it.

Perhaps that member would be better suited to stay within the realm of their imaginary world.

.

Nothing ever changes with some members irrespective of the forum.

 

[HenryBHough]

One can see the value of this new formatted sub-forum simply by reviewing the vicious opposition to it having come to exist. I hadn't thought much of the idea at first but it's becoming quite appealing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It just puzzles me why people seem to have a problem with anything they cannot control

That is 180 degrees opposite to what is being proposed. It is those who are demanding a control that no one else has that is the problem here. Why should anyone else be given control over your definition of who you are? This is about those who want to control others.

 

[dblack]

Having participated in a number of these beta threads it is becoming apparent that there was an ulterior motive behind giving the OP the right to dictate arbitrary and unreasonable "rules".

I am specifically referring to post #6 in the Guidelines thread. The author of that post wants to have the right to censor valid criticism under the transparent guise of dictating arbitrary definitions and have the mods act as enforcers.

That fits the definition of censorship IMO.

It is. But it's not coercive and has nothing at all to with first amendment free speech.

 

[BlackSand]

One can see the value of this new formatted sub-forum simply by reviewing the vicious opposition to it having come to exist. I hadn't thought much of the idea at first but it's becoming quite appealing.

It is a different experience ... Foxfyre started a thread and is doing a decent job of steering.
The topic is pretty defined and it severely limits open discussion ... Makes for an interesting approach to debate.

At least give a look if you want to see how it works.
There are a few more that have popped up, but I really wasn't interested in the topics ... So I haven't checked them out.

It is a far cry from censorship ... And a great leap towards keeping the thread on track.

.

 

[dblack]

One can see the value of this new formatted sub-forum simply by reviewing the vicious opposition to it having come to exist. I hadn't thought much of the idea at first but it's becoming quite appealing.

It is a different experience ... Foxfyre started a thread and is doing a decent job of steering.
The topic is pretty defined and it severely limits open discussion ... Makes for an interesting approach to debate.

At least give a look if you want to see how it works.
There are a few more that have popped up, but I really wasn't interested in the topics ... So I haven't checked them out.

It is a far cry from censorship ... And a great leap towards keeping the thread on track.

.

It's censorship only in that it strives to prevent trolls from derailing discussions they'd rather suppress.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 'rules for this discussion' listed in the OP seem reasonable and comport with the fundamental criteria for actual debate, pity such rules can't be observed in every forum on the board.

But no, it isn't censorship, as only government can seek to censor – on a private venue such as a message board administrators are at liberty to control the content as they see fit, or afford that privilege to thread authors.

The rules are also relegated to one sub-forum, if a board member doesn't like the rules, he needn't participate.

Last, no information in the sub-forum is being censored that can't be freely accessed elsewhere online.

 

[BlackSand]

It just puzzles me why people seem to have a problem with anything they cannot control

That is 180 degrees opposite to what is being proposed. It is those who are demanding a control that no one else has that is the problem here. Why should anyone else be given control over your definition of who you are? This is about those who want to control others.

A member volunteering to participate is not a sign of someone else controlling them.
The suggestion is an example of sheer negligence towards any kind of personal responsibility.

.