Zone1 The need for a Formal Debate forum?

High heeled tennis shoes and a fur lined jockstrap ought to suffice.
I'd Rather Be a Troll Than a Trollop

I can sell you a set of dress-code rules for only $29.99. In fact, I'll let you have one for free if you take the pallets of grammar rules off my hands and dispose of them. I haven't sold even a booklet of them since the invention of the Netrix.
 
Last edited:
The formal forum was about quality, not quantity. It was for folks that wanted to actually discuss a topic, not flame/fight/troll about it. It was common for a formal thread to only have 10-12 participants.

Wish we could do that. But we cant and dont enforce a "level of effort" at USMB. We like to keep the rules focused on "topical content" so AT LEAST -- we get that. As you can see from this thread, there's a LOT of members who resent the "Zone" system with different levels of moderation made available. SO -- every time we get CREATIVE or want more CONSTRUCTIVE discussion -- there's ample "blow-back".

To me PERSONALLY, not as a staff endorsement -- the VALUE of USMB should be to remind folks what discussion LOOKS like. Because in times like these, even our elected leadership is more practiced in hypocrisy and dishonest "messaging" than anyone of them is interested in ACTUAL discussion.
The "poll" I was referring to, was actually a software trick we used to create a participant list. On VB you could create a poll thread and disallow comments. So the folks that "voted" were the people that wanted to be included. Also on VB you could create "exclusive" threads, and list the members who could post. And they were the only ones that did. Also these threads did not appear in the "New Post". So the only way people even knew the threads existed was they would have to click into the sub forum and see them.
It is just an idea.

OK then. So the mods would have list of names that WANTED access to the thread and could honor or deny access? That makes it a BIT easier, but deciding on WHO CAN get in -- could become a bit testy in the mod room. For "Invite Only" -- if the OPoster WANTED them -- they could pretty have them. Either Balanced or "Echo Chamber" mode could be possible.

The problem with FORMAL debate on a message board of this size is simply BALANCE. And "8 on 1" debate isn't really a debate. It's more like a Mensa version of Survivor. :lmao:
 
What would be the reason to have a formal debate forum? IMO most people don't come here to have a formal debate with rules having to be memorized and strict enforcement with penalties.
Rulemakers Need to Drown Out the Voices in the Wilderness

It's people like you who imagine they will drive my rules emporium into bankruptcy. But I'm not worried; warning, banning, and canceling have become our national pastime. This hot market won't cool down because of a tiny number of independent thinkers.
 
trick we used to create a participant list. On VB you could create a poll thread and disallow comments. So the folks that "voted" were the people that wanted to be included. Also on VB you could create "exclusive" threads, and list the members who could post. And they were the only ones that did. Also these threads did not appear in the "New Post". So the only way people even knew the threads existed was they would have to click into the sub forum and see them.
Book by a Modern Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Exclude People
 
Posting in some threads is like being surrounded by Whack a Mole games. You make a post and here comes all these little pest and trolls ruining any chance whatsoever of anyone being able to talk.
Sorta like trying to carry on a conversation in a a crowded daycare.
 
Why do you want to deny THAT CHOICE to others? YOU dont have to participate in Zone1 forums.

The mistake would be NOT having zones and NOT offering different places like the Flame Zone and Civil Debate forum. There's only 3 "debate style" Zone 1 forums. Why do you want them gone?
It doesn’t matter what I want or why I want it. You mods and/or the admin want the zone shit. Therefore, being obviously honest, your questions are irrelevant.

But even though i get the fact that you dislike me, I am not similarly inclined. I think you’re ok. So I’ll tell you here and now why I believe Zone 1 is a big mistake.

If a Zone 1 thread begins with some bait shit and isn’t flagged for it, then later on when some member returns volley, he or she will get penalized.

Let’s flip it around a little. Why can’t we have a zone 1 type thread without the additional imposition of “rules” that only lead to mod action? I mean seriously. When a member posts bait shit, it is human nature to rise to the bait. Why penalize the responder, alone?

Without mentioning the member by username, the zone 1 protected race thread is a good example. The OP can start off with bait (generally based on race) but he can’t be called out for the underlying racist assumptions of his OP.

Ok. But why does he get away with endlessly posting racist threads with the protection of the Board? My position is that the Board is making a big mistake.
 
If a Zone 1 thread begins with some bait shit and isn’t flagged for it, then later on when some member returns volley, he or she will get penalized.

Let’s flip it around a little. Why can’t we have a zone 1 type thread without the additional imposition of “rules” that only lead to mod action? I mean seriously. When a member posts bait shit, it is human nature to rise to the bait. Why penalize the responder, alone?

"bait shit" can be very subjective. We dont allow baiting threads EVEN IN LESSER ZONES. A lot of people get easily triggered by assertions that SHOULD be challenged, but aren't "raw bait". If you dont LIKE those assertions -- debate them.

Labeling them as baiting because you dont like those assertions and using that as an excuse to get combative just negates the entire concept of civil discussion.

For example, we DO allow racists to post on USMB. We DO THAT because they NEED to be challenged. And if the members take that opportunity to firmly CORRECT the misconceptions of racists -- ACCORDING to the rules -- that's useful. Doesn't MATTER what zone the thread might be in. Could be in Flame Zone or Clean Debate. If it's a challenging topic -- and you have the will and energy to DISMANTLE marginalized or outright fraudulent views -- do it by the RULES of that forum.

If NO ONE CARES enough to put in the effort to do that - there's be no upside to the example of allowing racists (who also respect the rules) to post here. And just FLAMING them is WORSE than just useless.

BTW -- if any thread in Z1 or Z2 for that matter develops personal exchanges with NO reference to the topic -- the results are the same. Because multi-post exchanges of flame and other taunting -- without pushing on the ACTUAL TOPIC -- are illegal and actionable. Not JUST a Zone1 issue.
 
Last edited:
On other boards it's pretty much the same as here, zero interest in formal debating, hence the crickets in those types of forums. Few even know what formal debating is anyway. Are there even still debating clubs in high schools and colleges any more? I doubt it, since being 'Woke' has infected the education system to the point where it is a joke.

All Zone 1 or 2 rules are just to protect troll threads by deviants and pagans from being shown the proper respect they deserve.
 
All Zone 1 or 2 rules are just to protect troll threads by deviants and pagans from being shown the proper respect they deserve.
Not 100% true. You might notice a few of the posters who repeatedly posted troll threads there are now gone. Banned.
There are still a few who still do, but they do it right on the edge of what is allowable. Our British troll here is the most prevalent one.
 
The Gettysburg Address is about 250 words.

The Declaration of Independence is about 1500.

The Constitution is about 4500.

Explaining the zones and features of a message board shouldn’t require more than those 3 documents combined.
 
For example, we DO allow racists to post on USMB.
The very worst of such you coddle and protect, hold to a lower standard than any others, offer a special welcome on the poster's personal page, and use as a reference for evaluating the very definition of racism, itself.
 
Between?

I have never considered rolling around in the mud and offering worthwhile thoughts as mutually exclusive notions, myself.
Good point Dogmaphobe! Once the mud rolling starts, more water is instantly added to the mix to ensure the distinction is harder to see. Funny about how a little mud can sometimes be fun, like when you’re in an off-road 4 wheeler, but standing in the mud all day (like the KY Derby infield during an all day rain) not so much. This board works in a similar fashion imo. Doesn’t seem to be much consensus about how much mud is fun without going overboard. Some enjoy the overboard element of course.
 
We actually TRIED THAT -- It's in the Structured Debate forum as "Invite ONLY Threads" where the OPoster GAVE A LIST of invitees and moderation ENFORCED the participation according to that list. We got HOWLS of resentment for that and people didn't want to brave the scorn about being IN "exclusive" threads on a forum like USMB. I thought it would be a GREAT WAY to offer a space for a folks to CHOOSE who participates, but it's not in use any more due to lack of interest and a LOT of very vocal resentment from the folks who want to brawl in EVERY thread in EVERY forum.

That's not true.

I opposed the idea.

But I had/have no interest in ''brawling'' with anyone on here.

What that 'invite only' thing turned into, predictably, was a bunch of people who didn't actually want any kind of meaningful opposition to their views and who only wanted confirmation of their own perspectives (which were extremely limited as I recall)

That whole concept was basically just a form of consensus cracking. Which just means starting a thread on what may be a critical topic of discussion, except with an extremely weak premise and no substantive proof of claims made. And there wouldn't ever be a requirement for that since an invite only tended to only invite people with the same agenda and remedial debate skills even if they did have an actual opposing view in the mix. Which they never really did. That in itself devolves into forum sliding (keeping a thread on top). Which is something else entirely but only compounded the problem since it is the natural course of the former.
 
Last edited:
1) A topic is offered. A member opens a thread with the topic, and what they want to discuss. At this point the thread cannot be posted in except by moderators. A moderator will either A) Approve the thread for discussion or B) Close it and report why the thread is not "worthy" of a formal debate

And precisely who vets the mod's judgment with regard to what is worthy topical content for debate and what is not worthy topical content for debate?

Mods are just volunteers from the same pool of misfits, and with their own set of biases.

What makes their judgment more valuable than anyone elses?
 
Last edited:
What that 'invite only' thing turned into, predictably, was a bunch of people who didn't actually want any kind of meaningful opposition to their views and who only wanted confirmation of their own perspectives (which were extremely limited as I recall)
Well, just asking a question here, what is wrong with that? If you want to invite some like minded folks to comment on something...I don't see the harm in it.

I personally like that they created the 2nd Amendment Forum since it limits the amount of "Someone got killed by a gun in country X so we don't suck so badly" excuse threads. I say have more opportunities for folks to self-segregate.
 
That's more than just a good idea, that's an absolute necessity...hard to go off topic with that requirement in place.
It is... and why I keep referring to "rock throwing".
The typical debate - USMB style.... "Look at this, Party A sucks!"..... "Look at what Party B did they suck!" .... "You suck!...you hate people! and worship evil!... "Fuck you !.. your stupid"

Such as it is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top