Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
- Thread starter
- #61
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.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:
- Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
- How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
- Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
- Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
- Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
- Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
- No ad hominems.
- Dictionary definitions will prevail.
- Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
- What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
- When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
- Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
- If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
- No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.
"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.
1. No ad hominems.
Last edited: