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

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes. And more than once I have wished I had included a rule in the OP just because it can't be added later. But we get better at knowing which rules are constructive to the discussion and which ones inhibit it as we go along. There is a learning curve.

I would not want the OP to be limited to choices from a specified list of rules, however, because there may be topics that need a rule that wouldn't be on the list.

But if somebody sees a thread as a circle jerk propaganda thread or has any other reason to dislike the thread, or the topic is just not of interest, or they hate the thread author, then don't participate in that thread. Such person should not subscribe to it or make a post in it. Just scroll on by and find a topic that is of interest. That too is such a simple concept.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No.
Structured debates are as old as time itself.
People have had them for generations. It is a great way to have a debate.
Having said that, if an OP frames the debate where the only "debate" is to agree with them - then simply don't post in it.

Problem solved.

 

[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.

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.

Except that you are falsely assuming that the OP picks the right definition every time.

What happens when they don't?

What if your personal beliefs were deliberately and maliciously falsely defined by the OP?

What recourse would you have to correct that? If you tried to refute the false definition you would be in violation of the OP Rules and could be reported and given an infraction, right?

To all intents and purposes you would be censored from providing any alternative to the false definition dictated by the OP under these "rules".

No single person should have the unquestioned right to dictate that their definition is the only correct one. Once you grant a single person that power you effectively terminate any pretense of a "structured discussion" and it just becomes that single person's erroneous and unchallenged opinion.

Is that what you want?

Is that how you believe that structured discussions should be held? One person is the judge and jury and the defense is not allowed to speak?

 

[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.

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.

Agreed!

And if management appoints a single person to be the official spokesperson for the organization then they are the only person who can speak on behalf of management.

However USMB is based upon a different business model. USMB makes money by promoting free speech. Diverse opinions result in conflict and conflict attracts eyeballs and eyeballs earn revenue for USMB.

Giving a single person the right to dictate definitions eliminates conflict which in turn reduces eyeballs and thus reduces revenues.

The censorship of terms proposed by the author of post #6 in the SDZ Guidelines will do more harm than good IMO.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

I don't have a problem with the concept of the SDZ.

I am calling out the suggested overreach of the author of post #6 in the SDZ Guidelines thread.

That will reduce the SDZ to nothing more than a propaganda platform where all opposition of censored.

If we are going to have an SDZ then the rules cannot empower a single OP into becoming a "mini mod". The rules must encompass fair and open debate. Instead we have already seen that same OP try to censor valid criticism in other SDZ threads because they exposed the fallacy of the OP topic.

If the OP cannot be held accountable for making erroneous statement then there is no "structured discussion" and this entire sub-forum becomes moot. And yes, that same accountability applies to me as the OP of this thread as was stated in the "rules".

When you give someone power you also need to be able to hold them accountable for using that power correctly. The censorship overreach in Post #6 of the Guidelines demands power without accountability.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

No, it isn't that simple.

If the OP dictates that a false and malicious definition of a term is the only acceptable one and no one is allowed to question that definition then there is no "structured debate".

The OP must be held accountable for what they post just like everyone else.

No OP is "above the law" which is what is being demanded by the specious "right of the OP to dictate the meaning of terms".

 

[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.

No, it isn't that simple.

If the OP dictates that a false and malicious definition of a term is the only acceptable one and no one is allowed to question that definition then there is no "structured debate".

The OP must be held accountable for what they post just like everyone else.

No OP is "above the law" which is what is being demanded by the specious "right of the OP to dictate the meaning of terms".

And whose 'law' is being violated if the OP stays within the rules assigned to Zone 2?

 

[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.

Agreed!

And if management appoints a single person to be the official spokesperson for the organization then they are the only person who can speak on behalf of management.

However USMB is based upon a different business model. USMB makes money by promoting free speech. Diverse opinions result in conflict and conflict attracts eyeballs and eyeballs earn revenue for USMB.

Giving a single person the right to dictate definitions eliminates conflict which in turn reduces eyeballs and thus reduces revenues.

The censorship of terms proposed by the author of post #6 in the SDZ Guidelines will do more harm than good IMO.

I guess I just don't see one manipulation of the conversation as being different than the other.

But I agree making money is the goal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

No, it isn't that simple.

If the OP dictates that a false and malicious definition of a term is the only acceptable one and no one is allowed to question that definition then there is no "structured debate".

The OP must be held accountable for what they post just like everyone else.

No OP is "above the law" which is what is being demanded by the specious "right of the OP to dictate the meaning of terms".

And whose 'law' is being violated if the OP stays within the rules assigned to Zone 2?

Let's get down to specifics here.

Your post #16;

Debate Now - Liberalism and Conservatism US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The basic concept of modern day American liberalism

In the quote above you claimed to speak for "modern day America" and were outraged when it pointed out that it was only your personal biased opinion of liberalism and not that of "modern day America".

That is why you came up with post #6 in the SDZ Guidelines to grant you the unfettered right to denigrate liberalism as "statism" as evidenced below in post #143;

Debate Now - Is Liberalism Exhausted Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Using "statist', 'progressive', 'political class', as synonyms for 'liberal', when that is the definition, is not ad hominem. Most especially when I defined the term. "Statism' is not a pejorative term. It is a specific political and economic system or philosophy.

...

I do wish I had added a fourth rule for the debate. It would have said this:

4. No complaints about the topic or the author of the column used to illustrate the thesis. If you don't approve of the topic please start your own thread.

Essentially you are demanding the right to dictate that you, and only you, should be allowed to fallaciously "define" liberalism as "statism" which is utterly fraudulent and baseless.

Furthermore you want to deny everyone else their rights to challenge your defamatory definition on the specious basis that it is "derailing the thread" when they hold you accountable for your egregious fallacies.

Oh, and before you report this post I suggest that you actually read the rules for this OP. Here they are again.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:​

1. 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.

Please note #2, #3, #4, #7 and #8.

2. Liberalism does not fit the dictionary definition of "statism".
3. You don't speak for "modern day America"
4. Your opinion is only your opinion and nothing more.
7. Using partisan terminology to "redefine" liberalism is being called out.
8. Neither you nor I are exempt from the legitimate criticism.

Yes, the OP included the right to provide those links and quotes above to illustrate what you are demanding and factually quoting what you have posted is legitimate criticism and does not fall under the definition of ad hom.

 

[jillian]

I agree that derailing and trolling are not good.

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

Well there is if you want to control what people say so you can keep them from being able to disagree with you.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Except that you are falsely assuming that the OP picks the right definition every time.

What happens when they don't?

What if your personal beliefs were deliberately and maliciously falsely defined by the OP?

What recourse would you have to correct that? If you tried to refute the false definition you would be in violation of the OP Rules and could be reported and given an infraction, right?

To all intents and purposes you would be censored from providing any alternative to the false definition dictated by the OP under these "rules".

No single person should have the unquestioned right to dictate that their definition is the only correct one. Once you grant a single person that power you effectively terminate any pretense of a "structured discussion" and it just becomes that single person's erroneous and unchallenged opinion.

Is that what you want?

Is that how you believe that structured discussions should be held? One person is the judge and jury and the defense is not allowed to speak?

When they don't use the right definition for a term, you can use more specific terms and avoid the term in question, or when you do you use their term qualify their term by repeating their definition.

For example, if I say up means down. Then you can say something like I observe that objects travel in the direction of gravity, which by your definition means you are standing on your head. Notice how I had a discussion about the topic without using the term.

If your beliefs are deliberately and maliciously falsely defined by the OP... take that as a challenge to argue they are wrong with facts.

You don't need to change "their" definition of a word to attack that definition.

It takes practice. One part of my job is to take formal legal arguments for a living.

The OP does not own the definition of the term "outside" the OP.

Put it another way if the term is a noun pretend the term is "widget" then use their definition of what the widget is to argue against that vs the name widget.

For example, if the OP is about undesirable car regulations, and I say a car is a hunk of fiberglass that floats and people fish off. You can argue that said regulations are desirable because evidence shows any motorized floating vehicles are dangerous vehicles when operated by a drunk operator.

 

[jillian]

Lol.

 

[Foxfyre]

"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.

Except that you are falsely assuming that the OP picks the right definition every time.

What happens when they don't?

What if your personal beliefs were deliberately and maliciously falsely defined by the OP?

What recourse would you have to correct that? If you tried to refute the false definition you would be in violation of the OP Rules and could be reported and given an infraction, right?

To all intents and purposes you would be censored from providing any alternative to the false definition dictated by the OP under these "rules".

No single person should have the unquestioned right to dictate that their definition is the only correct one. Once you grant a single person that power you effectively terminate any pretense of a "structured discussion" and it just becomes that single person's erroneous and unchallenged opinion.

Is that what you want?

Is that how you believe that structured discussions should be held? One person is the judge and jury and the defense is not allowed to speak?

When they don't use the right definition for a term, you can use more specific terms and avoid the term in question, or when you do you use their term qualify their term by repeating their definition.

For example, if I say up means down. Then you can say something like I observe that objects travel in the direction of gravity, which by your definition means you are standing on your head. Notice how I had a discussion about the topic without using the term.

If your beliefs are deliberately and maliciously falsely defined by the OP... take that as a challenge to argue they are wrong with facts.

You don't need to change "their" definition of a word to attack that definition.

It takes practice. One part of my job is to take formal legal arguments for a living.

The OP does not own the definition of the term "outside" the OP.

Put it another way if the term is a noun pretend the term is "widget" then use their definition of what the widget is to argue against that vs the name widget.

For example, if the OP is about undesirable car regulations, and I say a car is a hunk of fiberglass that floats and people fish off. You can argue that said regulations are desirable because evidence shows any motorized floating vehicles are dangerous vehicles when operated by a drunk operator.

I have dealt with a LOT of legal documents in my time. And a great many of them specified definitions for various terms used so that there would be no misunderstanding about the intent of a word when it was used and it didn't have to be defined every single time it was used.

THAT is what defining a term in the OP is intended to do for purposes of that discussion only so that a discussion can take place without incessant whining and obfusication by those who wouldn't define the term in the same way.

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

What is more offensive. S/he who defines a term for purposes of clarification and discussion? Or S/he who would demand that the OP cannot define the term in any other way than the critic defines it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

In other words nobody is allowed to challenge the falsehoods of the OP and they must never be held accountable.

Why is the false definition exempt from being challenged?

Why should the person making the false definition not be held accountable?

Who would accept that happening to them in real life if they were falsely defined as being a criminal?

Why is that acceptable in USMB?

 

[RKMBrown]

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

In other words nobody is allowed to challenge the falsehoods of the OP and they must never be held accountable.

Why is the false definition exempt from being challenged?

Why should the person making the false definition not be held accountable?

Who would accept that happening to them in real life if they were falsely defined as being a criminal?

Why is that acceptable in USMB?

I provided answers with easy to use workarounds in my above post. You are just repeating your questions without addressing the answers.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It is censorship only in that it limits the discussion to a specific topic and gives the OP more power to prevent those who would almost certainly derail or suppress the discussion from doing so. It seems to be people WANTING the power to censor here who seem to be the ones whining about the new forum.

I have seen no rule posted by anybody that prohibits or discourages disagreement with the OP. Only rules that prohibit people from derailing the thread or getting bogged down in definitions and semantics.

But I suspect that those doing the loudest complaining and whining are those who have a huge problem with me for whatever reason. And I suspect those doing the loudest complaining have me mostly in mind when they do it. At least I don't see them bitching about rules anybody else has posted.

So that's my dilemma. Do I let them win and withdraw from the forum altogether. In which case I'm sure there will be a lot of glad handing and congratulations. And it would probably restore peace to the forum. Or stick to my guns and enjoy the potential the great new forum offers?

Decisions. . .decisions. . .

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

In other words nobody is allowed to challenge the falsehoods of the OP and they must never be held accountable.

Why is the false definition exempt from being challenged?

Why should the person making the false definition not be held accountable?

Who would accept that happening to them in real life if they were falsely defined as being a criminal?

Why is that acceptable in USMB?

I provided answers with easy to use workarounds in my above post. You are just repeating your questions without addressing the answers.

What you provided would not have worked because the OP would have accused you of derailing the thread.

That is the Catch-22 when giving the OP dictatorial powers without accountability.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

It is censorship only in that it limits the discussion to a specific topic and gives the OP more power to prevent those who would almost certainly derail or suppress the discussion to do so. It seems to be people WANTING the power to censor here who seem to be the ones whining about the new forum.

I have seen no rule posted by anybody that prohibits or discourages disagreement with the OP. Only rules that prohibit people from derailing the thread or getting bogged down in definitions and semantics.

But I suspect that those doing the loudest complaining and whining are those who have a huge problem with me for whatever reason. And I suspect those doing the loudest complaining have me mostly in mind when they do it. At least I don't see them bitching about rules anybody else has posted.

So that's my dilemma. Do I let them win and withdraw from the forum altogether. In which I'm sure there will be a lot of glad handing and congratulations. And it would probably restore peace to the forum. Or stick to my guns and enjoy the potential the great new forum offers?

Decisions. . .decisions. . .

 

[BlackSand]

It is censorship only in that it limits the discussion to a specific top and gives the OP more power to prevent those who would almost certainly derail or suppress the discussion to do so. It seems to be people WANTING the power to censor here who seem to be the ones whining about the new forum.

I have seen no rule posted by anybody that prohibits or discourages disagreement with the OP. Only rules that prohibit people from derailing the thread or getting bogged down in definitions and semantics.

But I suspect that those doing the loudest complaining and whining are those who have a huge problem with me for whatever reason. And I suspect those doing the loudest complaining have me mostly in mind when they do it. At least I don't see them bitching about rules anybody else has posted.

So that's my dilemma. Do I let them win and withdraw from the forum altogether. In which I'm sure there will be a lot of glad handing and congratulations. And it would probably restore peace to the forum. Or stick to my guns and enjoy the potential the great new forum offers?

Decisions. . .decisions. . .

It is a conspiracy to lock you in the Lounge under their watchful eye and throw the key away ... Lolz!

Most of the folks crying have been here long enough and posted material that indicates they have more than two brain cells rubbing together.
To act like they don't understand the premise in order to caterwaul around saying it is censorship ... Is pretty funny if you ask me.

But hey ... If that is the definition they want to apply to it ... It is their thread and who am I to argue.
I think it is funny and has shown decent entertainment value already.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

If the definition is offensive to anybody, all the person has to do is just exit the thread and do not participate in it.

In other words nobody is allowed to challenge the falsehoods of the OP and they must never be held accountable.

Why is the false definition exempt from being challenged?

Why should the person making the false definition not be held accountable?

Who would accept that happening to them in real life if they were falsely defined as being a criminal?

Why is that acceptable in USMB?

I provided answers with easy to use workarounds in my above post. You are just repeating your questions without addressing the answers.

What you provided would not have worked because the OP would have accused you of derailing the thread.

That is the Catch-22 when giving the OP dictatorial powers without accountability.

You just made a Strawman argument

Discussing the topic is not derailing it, thus your strawman argument is not factual. It's FUD.