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

[Derideo_Te]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. No ad hominems.​

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 1. No ad hominems.

I see, so you are saying any rule whatsoever is a form of censorship. Well yes, that would be true. This board has always had minor forms of censorship. Censorship is one of those funny words. People see in censorship, good and bad forms of censorship. Whether you think particular rules applied to censorship are good or bad depends on your perspective.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 1. No ad hominems.

I simply cannot believe that a person who cherishes free speech wrote that...

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 1. No ad hominems.

I see, so you are saying any rule whatsoever is a form of censorship. Well yes, that would be true. This board has always had minor forms of censorship. Censorship is one of those funny words. People see in censorship, good and bad forms of censorship. Whether you think particular rules applied to censorship are good or bad depends on your perspective.

No, not any rule.

Only a rule where the OP is appointed as the censor to be the sole decider of what a term means.

Dictionary terms are universally agreed upon.

Giving an individual the power to redefine the meaning of any term to whatever suits themselves is censorship because they are not answerable to anyone but themselves. When they insist that fallacious definition must be accepted there is no recourse. It is a violation of the rules to challenge them. That is censorship.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 1. No ad hominems.

I simply cannot believe that a person who cherishes free speech wrote that...

I am just going to throw this out there: is it possible we are seeing a secret episode of the body snatchers???

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 1. No ad hominems.

I see, so you are saying any rule whatsoever is a form of censorship. Well yes, that would be true. This board has always had minor forms of censorship. Censorship is one of those funny words. People see in censorship, good and bad forms of censorship. Whether you think particular rules applied to censorship are good or bad depends on your perspective.

No, not any rule.

Only a rule where the OP is appointed as the censor to be the sole decider of what a term means.

Dictionary terms are universally agreed upon.

Giving an individual the power to redefine the meaning of any term to whatever suits themselves is censorship because they are not answerable to anyone but themselves. When they insist that fallacious definition must be accepted there is no recourse. It is a violation of the rules to challenge them. That is censorship.

bingo.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Define censorship. Structured debates include a measure of censorship to keep the debates structured. You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate.

"Define censorship."

Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.​

"You coming into a debate and spewing your biased opinions around as facts is not structured debate."

Reported for violating OP Rules of this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 1. No ad hominems.

I see, so you are saying any rule whatsoever is a form of censorship. Well yes, that would be true. This board has always had minor forms of censorship. Censorship is one of those funny words. People see in censorship, good and bad forms of censorship. Whether you think particular rules applied to censorship are good or bad depends on your perspective.

No, not any rule.

Only a rule where the OP is appointed as the censor to be the sole decider of what a term means.

Dictionary terms are universally agreed upon.

Giving an individual the power to redefine the meaning of any term to whatever suits themselves is censorship because they are not answerable to anyone but themselves. When they insist that fallacious definition must be accepted there is no recourse. It is a violation of the rules to challenge them. That is censorship.

Ok that is a fair narrowing of the definition of the term "censoring" that was not clear from the OP.

Most words have many agreed upon definitions, not one agreed upon definition.

I put it to you that you have just proven that the rule is necessary to refine the meaning of the term censoring in the OP.

Thus having proven that the rule is necessary, you yourself have just proven that the OP is wrong, in so far as having the OP specify what is meant by the terms used in the OP is a needed rule for a structured debate.

Note: this is where the audience usually starts a slow clap.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

I was once told that you have as much free speech as the management allows you to have.

Some have it and others don't. It's pretty much a given.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I see, so you are saying any rule whatsoever is a form of censorship." Only Brown would say that.

And his lack of sense and logic in the post immediately above is breathtaking.

Attacking me with your negative personal opinions about me is not allowed in structured debate. If you want to flame I suggest taking your posts to the flame zone.

One, in structure, only DeRideo can make that decision as the OP.

Two, in fact, my opinion is based on what you write, not my personal feelings. Your post lacked sense and logic. That is not flaming.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nobody is forced to participate in a Structured Debate thread. If you don't care for the rules of the OP, don't engage them. It's that simple. The idea came about because some people wanted to try and have discussions that didn't devolve into a bunch of ten year olds slobbering on each other while riding the short bus to school.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I was once told that you have as much free speech as the management allows to have.

Some have it and others don't. It's pretty much a given.

I've participated in several political forums over the years and this one by far is the most liberal (in terms of freedom of speech) I've ever been apart of. Most other forums out there have pretty stringent rules. We really don't which is the main reason I've stuck around here for so long.

 

[BlueGin]

I was once told that you have as much free speech as the management allows to have.

Some have it and others don't. It's pretty much a given.

I've participated in several political forums over the years and this one by far is the most liberal (in terms of freedom of speech) I've ever been apart of. Most other forums out there have pretty stringent rules. We really don't which is the main reason I've stuck around here for so long.

Stringent rules sure. But are they doled out evenly? Or are they abused by some and overlooked on purpose?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Stringent rules sure. But are they doled out evenly?

They are by me

 

[RKMBrown]

"I see, so you are saying any rule whatsoever is a form of censorship." Only Brown would say that.

And his lack of sense and logic in the post immediately above is breathtaking.

Attacking me with your negative personal opinions about me is not allowed in structured debate. If you want to flame I suggest taking your posts to the flame zone.

One, in structure, only DeRideo can make that decision as the OP.

Two, in fact, my opinion is based on what you write, not my personal feelings. Your post lacked sense and logic. That is not flaming.

Incorrect. Structured debate rules cannot override the base rules of the forum. "Zone 2 rules apply." Personal attacks are not allowed in the structured debate zone. The SDZ is not the structured debate flame zone. Whether or not my post lacked sense or logic is an opinion, when pointed out in the negative, that is flaming.

• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your interpretation is incorrect.

My correction was not personal, only to your mistakes.

Only the OP in SDZ can make that call, not you.

Go back and read again.

If you have a question, ask the OP, DeRideo.

 

[Coyote]

Folks - this is a debate on the merits of a particular subforum. This is NOT a discussion of forum wide rules or moderation. If you have issues with that, you know where to take them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your interpretation is incorrect.

My correction was not personal, only to your mistakes.

Only the OP in SDZ can make that call, not you.

Go back and read again.

If you have a question, ask the OP, DeRideo.

Your opinion of my post was that it was breathtaking in it's lack of sense and logic. You did not point out why you thought the post lacked sense or reason, nor did you provide any facts. IOW your post was a troll post nothing more.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is forced to participate in a Structured Debate thread. If you don't care for the rules of the OP, don't engage them. It's that simple. The idea came about because some people wanted to try and have discussions that didn't devolve into a bunch of ten year olds slobbering on each other while riding the short bus to school.

Amen, amen, and amen!!!!

It is just mind boggling that it seems to be mostly the very people who most insist on what the discussion must be who object to an OP that specifies what the discussion will be.

Certainly the Structured Debate Zone is its own thing and does not apply to all of USMB. I see it as a grand experiment and appreciate an opportunity to try to make it work.

Again, if it doesn't. . .if we don't have enough people who enjoy a more structured focus to make it viable. . .we'll know soon enough. But meanwhile it is so simple. If you don't like an OP or the rules specified by the thread author, then don't participate in that thread. Why is that such a problem for some?

 

[Coyote]

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.

That's reasonable. The way I understand it though is that the rules must be stated in the OP - you can't add rules beyond that. That is how we are treating it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Getting back to the OP, in my opinion it is perfectly reasonable for the OP to specify a definition for a term that will be used for purposes of debate in that particular thread. Most particularly given the propensity of some to spend pages of a thread arguing what the defintiions have to be in their opinion.

If the OP specifies what a particular word, phrase, or term means for purposes of that discussion, then that should cut down on opportunities to derail the thread with unnecessary discussion about the defintiion. The OP has to conform to Zone 2 rules so it cannot make the defintiion something that would violate Zone 2 rules.

And if the OP's definition is just too outrageous or irritating, then by all means don't participate in the thread.

Again it is so simple.