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

[Coyote]

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to participate.
This is one forum out of (how many do we have?).
There is a multitude of forums out there from which to choose if this one doesn't suit you - that might not suit others from the Flame Zone to the Lounge.
It's all very experimental right now but for some, there do seem to be some good discussions.
Threads that become the playgrounds of mini-mods will not get much traffic.

 

[Coyote]

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

We have that with the Bullpen

 

[JakeStarkey]

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..

No one is condemning anyone, only rationally discussing the proposition. It is obvious, once again, when you talk about control, you are in fact talking about desire to control an OP from start to finish. You are only talking about yourself when you mention personal insecurity and weakness. But that is an issue for you only to resolve. I wish you well.

Coyote, it is the call for admin, of course, and I am confident the great majority of the members will support the decision. The elimination of the rep system worked better than generally expected, and I am sure this possibility is far less controversial.

 

[BlackSand]

No one is condemning anyone, only rationally discussing the proposition. It is obvious, once again, when you talk about control, you are in fact talking about desire to control an OP from start to finish. You are only talking about yourself when you mention personal insecurity and weakness. But that is an issue for you only to resolve. I wish you well.

That is the condemnation I am talking about ...

I personally don't have the desire to do anything I am not already doing within the confines of any section of any forum sub group here at USMB.
Nor do I have the desire to limit, define, adjust or lament the desires of others to enjoy the benefits of USMB in its entirety.

If you cannot make that distinction ... Then it certainly is not my problem.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is condemning anyone, only rationally discussing the proposition. It is obvious, once again, when you talk about control, you are in fact talking about desire to control an OP from start to finish. You are only talking about yourself when you mention personal insecurity and weakness. But that is an issue for you only to resolve. I wish you well.

That is the condemnation I am talking about ...

I personally don't have the desire to do anything I am not already doing within the confines of any section of any forum sub group here at USMB.
Nor do I have the desire to limit, define, adjust or lament the desires of others to enjoy the benefits of USMB in its entirety.

If you cannot make that distinction ... Then it certainly is not my problem..

You condemn others for what you are doing, that is the point, and then you insist you don't have "the desire to limit, define, adjust or lament the desires of others to enjoy the benefits of USMB in its entirety." Yes, you do, as you have demonstrated above repeatedly. The issue is that you don't want to be called out about it.

 

[Darkwind]

I think that the OP in this thread dislikes #6 because it prevents respondents from bringing specious tertiary issues to the topic. In other words, if they cannot derail the thread, they feel it is censorship.

In a real debate, the topic is agreed upon, the sources of information known ahead of time, and each person is allowed to bring their information to the TOPIC at hand. I realize that there are people who feel that the only way to win a debate is to bring into the conversation all manner of side subjects that have no bearing. Why is it, do you think, that the courts focus on a single issue in a law suit and prevent extraneous none sense to enter into the argument?

This is My opinion. I think that the OP is just upset that he cannot call the people he disagrees with names.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, you do, as you have demonstrated above repeatedly. The issue is that you don't want to be called out about it.

That is a completely incorrect and unsupported allegation.
The desire to see an expansion of opportunities ... Along with the realization of existing options and alternatives is in no way limiting anyone.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This conversation clearly demonstrates that my reasoned comments to your obvious denials that I am on the right tract. It also guts Darkwind's "specious tertiary issues" as nonsense. What we clearly see here is the far right's desire for an OP with distorted definitions without reasoned opposition. The far right's sweetest dream: to hate without opposition.

 

[Grandma]

I think that the OP in this thread dislikes #6 because it prevents respondents from bringing specious tertiary issues to the topic. In other words, if they cannot derail the thread, they feel it is censorship.
...

This is My opinion. I think that the OP is just upset that he cannot call the people he disagrees with names.

Let me put it this way:

Say I start a topic and have these rules:
1. Those that agree with me will not have to verify their "facts."
2. Those that disagree with me must provide verification of their "facts."
3. I will have final say on whether the verification source is legitimate or not.

It's no more that a circlejerk/propaganda/troll thread disguised as legitimate debate.



Perhaps a uniform (and very specific) set of rules should be listed for the forum. The individual OPs could choose to omit one or more of the rules for their particular debate, but they couldn't invent new rules or redefine any existing rules.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Threads that become the playgrounds of mini-mods will not get much traffic.

Agreed because it quickly becomes apparent that it is entirely one sided with no real debate actually allowed. Without any genuine opposing voices the thread just becomes a monotonous advertisement for a single viewpoint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The SDZ is set up to be abused as a trolling and spamming station for the OP, nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The SDZ will become nothing more than a trolling and spamming forum for the OP.

Remember the religious guy who got banned?

SDZ will become a vacation spot for religious and anti-religious zealots, StormFront freaks, and so forth.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Threads that become the playgrounds of mini-mods will not get much traffic.

Agreed because it quickly becomes apparent that it is entirely one sided with no real debate actually allowed. Without any genuine opposing voices the thread just becomes a monotonous advertisement for a single viewpoint.

Yepp.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The SDZ will become nothing more than a trolling and spamming forum for the OP.

Remember the religious guy who got banned?

SDZ will become a vacation spot for religious and anti-religious zealots, StormFront freaks, and so forth.

Well, the good news about that is if they nest here, they can do less damage elsewhere.

But then again, their presence cheapens everything. CK needs to decide if he wants this to be a board with some gravitas, or not, imo.

Letting stormfronters masturbate in writing hardly makes for a serious forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stat makes a wonderful point above.

The Foxfyres and Emilys and Avatar4321s are far and few on this Board in character, humanity, and quality.

Their type of SDZ would be swamped by the fascist twerkers of the far right, Storm Fronters, the militant atheists, the racialists, the militant religionists, and so forth.

Is that a Board worthy of USMB and its reputation?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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

I don't know, but there is a group of dyslexic socialists with the motto "twerkers of the world untie!".

Perhaps you should ask them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The notion that any forum's purpose is to foster free speech is fairly well cancelled out by the fact it has mods busy removing postings and telling people what hey cannot say, doncha think? Free speech is an illusion.

This particular forum is more free in what it allows people to say than most I have seen, though, and so the consequences for that is that all those people who have been drummed out of other forums for being raging lunatics, purveyors of hate, or complete dickheads will end up in places like this instead of those moderated more tightly. It's a simple matter of cause and effect.

As to this particular sub forum, it has agenda written all over it. We all have one, of course, but this places the agenda of the originator of the thread front and center.

 

[RKMBrown]

The notion that any forum's purpose is to foster free speech is fairly well cancelled out by the fact it has mods busy removing postings and telling people what hey cannot say, doncha think? Free speech is an illusion.

This particular forum is more free in what it allows people to say than most I have seen, though, and so the consequences for that is that all those people who have been drummed out of other forums for being raging lunatics, purveyors of hate, or complete dickheads will end up in places like this instead of those moderated more tightly. It's a simple matter of cause and effect.

As to this particular sub forum, it has agenda written all over it. We all have one, of course, but this places the agenda of the originator of the thread front and center.

Freedom does not mean the freedom to take freedom from others.

Free speech does not mean you can scream fire in a theater and end up killing people for no other reason than you thought it would be fun to watch people panic.

The moderators are around to keep the discussions within the guidelines of the rules. Freedom requires rules. If people want to participate in a structured debate... they should be "free" to do so.

 

[RKMBrown]

The SDZ will become nothing more than a trolling and spamming forum for the OP.

Remember the religious guy who got banned?

SDZ will become a vacation spot for religious and anti-religious zealots, StormFront freaks, and so forth.

Well, the good news about that is if they nest here, they can do less damage elsewhere.

But then again, their presence cheapens everything. CK needs to decide if he wants this to be a board with some gravitas, or not, imo.

Letting stormfronters masturbate in writing hardly makes for a serious forum.

Can you provide support for the accusation of "letting stormfronters masturbate in writing?" Can you define what it means to "masterbate in writing?"

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

I don't know, but there is a group of dyslexic socialists with the motto "twerkers of the world untie!".

Perhaps you should ask them.

Cna oyu aks thme?