Debate Now Vote for SDZ Rules -- Disagree Without Being Disagreeable

[Derideo_Te]

The purpose of this thread is to gather feedback on which SDZ rules will work for everyone and which ones won't. There are some that I believe everyone wants such as no ad homs but others are a little more contentious.

Please feel free to add your comments and suggestions for new rules and amendments to existing rules such as better wording, etc.

The SDZ has demonstrated a lot of promise and if we can agree on a common set of rules then that will take us all one step closer to making this a reality.

From my own perspective I like the idea of the SDZ to be a place where we can all come together to debate topics without having to worry about the noise level drowning out the valuable content.

TYIA

 

[Statistikhengst]

I DISAGREE that only non-partisan links are credible for the simple reason that many sites, although they might be virulently partisan, sometimes provide very credible data. The data itself, without interpretation, is not in question. I have no problem quoting election stats from either KOS (far Left) or Townhall (far Right), because in most cases, for instance, those stats will be identical.

Especially important is to find the common denominators, data-wise, between partisan sources that are diametrically opposed to each other. But of course, information from a completely non-partisan source is also nice to have. Only, it's getting harder and harder to find sources that have absolutely no dog at all in the race.

My two cents.

BTW, I really like your sigfile, Derideo_Te

 

[BlackSand]

Pineapple ...

Adding or approving a list of rules would essentially negate the idea the OP gets to set the parameters of the thread and apply any structure to the debate.
If a members cannot operate outside of a set of pre-ordained or approved rules ... They can just use the regular forums.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pineapple ...

Adding or approving a list of rules would essentially negate the idea the OP gets to set the parameters of the thread and apply any structure to the debate.
If a members cannot operate outside of a set of pre-ordained or approved rules ... They can just use the regular forums.

.

Which brand of pineapple would that be?

 

[PredFan]

It seems that we woukd spend a lot of time arguing over if a statement made was within this long list of rules.

 

[BlackSand]

Which brand of pineapple would that be?

I voted for pineapple ... But I am pretty much an equal opportunity pineapple enthusiast.
You put enough rum and coco lopez with it and the brand really doesn't matter.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I DISAGREE that only non-partisan links are credible for the simple reason that many sites, although they might be virulently partisan, sometimes provide very credible data. The data itself, without interpretation, is not in question. I have no problem quoting election stats from either KOS (far Left) or Townhall (far Right), because in most cases, for instance, those stats will be identical.

Especially important is to find the common denominators, data-wise, between partisan sources that are diametrically opposed to each other. But of course, information from a completely non-partisan source is also nice to have. Only, it's getting harder and harder to find sources that have absolutely no dog at all in the race.

My two cents.

BTW, I really like your sigfile, Derideo_Te

Good point! If the link refers to the data to substantiate the position then that would be credible regardless of partisan bias.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which brand of pineapple would that be?

I voted for pineapple ... But I am pretty much an equal opportunity pineapple enthusiast.
You put enough rum and coco lopez with it and really doesn't matter.

.

All USMB polls are better with pineapple.

You are allowed multiple votes and you can change your votes too. Feel free to add any that I missed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Pineapple ...

Adding or approving a list of rules would essentially negate the idea the OP gets to set the parameters of the thread and apply any structure to the debate.
If a members cannot operate outside of a set of pre-ordained or approved rules ... They can just use the regular forums.

.

If we can agree upon the predefined rules for the SDZ as a whole then they won't need to be repeated every time and the mods will have a single source for the basics.

If an OP wants to additional rules that will be up to them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My problem is simple, the supposed ad hom.. the supposed definition and every other subjective rule assumes that there is in fact agreement that those things are the final arbiter. I don't know how many times I have seen either side claim a statement was something it was not simply because it was written by someone they disagreed with. The most common is the claim that someone is trolling or off topic for pointing out a related subject or clarifying something that simple was not true. Let the author decide what is and is not acceptable and then you decide if you want to participate based on those rules and restrictions. Every formal debate has rules and restrictions fr said debate. And they are not all uniform and the same.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I really do not agree that the pineapple should be the only member of the family bromeliacea considered.

Tillandsias are much more attractive.

 

[boedicca]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

 

[BlackSand]

If we can agree upon the predefined rules for the SDZ as a whole then they won't need to be repeated every time and the mods will have a single source for the basics.

If an OP wants to additional rules that will be up to them.

We don't have to agree on rules ... The rules can vary to the OP's desires and don't have coincide with rules approved by anyone else.

If the OP wants input regarding rules they can ask for it.
If the OP wants to use rules previously established by someone else ... They can simply copy the other person's rules.
If the OP wants to exercise any form of real freedom ... Then they can make their own rules.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My problem is simple, the supposed ad hom.. the supposed definition and every other subjective rule assumes that there is in fact agreement that those things are the final arbiter. I don't know how many times I have seen either side claim a statement was something it was not simply because it was written by someone they disagreed with. The most common is the claim that someone is trolling or off topic for pointing out a related subject or clarifying something that simple was not true. Let the author decide what is and is not acceptable and then you decide if you want to participate based on those rules and restrictions. Every formal debate has rules and restrictions fr said debate. And they are not all uniform and the same.

My understanding of the purpose of the SDZ is that the OP will report to the mods if they believe something violates the rules. The mods will then make the decision based upon what has been stipulated for both the SDZ and the OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If we can agree upon the predefined rules for the SDZ as a whole then they won't need to be repeated every time and the mods will have a single source for the basics.

If an OP wants to additional rules that will be up to them.

We don't have to agree on rules ... The rules can vary to the OP's desires and don't have coincide with rules approved by anyone else.

If the OP wants input regarding rules they can ask for it.
If the OP wants to use rules previously established by someone else ... They can simply copy the other person's rules.
If the OP wants to exercise any form of real freedom ... Then they can make their own rules.

.

Let me refer you to the OP in the Guidelines for the SDZ.

• The OP (original poster) must be written out and in your own words i.e. NO copy/paste or simple links.
• The OP will clearly specify what additional rules will apply to the discussion. Such rules might request that no partisan labels such as Democrat, GOP, liberal, conservative, etc. be used. Or that no specific religion be mentioned. Or no specific person can be named. Or that the discussion is limited to a specific person, document, event, group, etc. Civil or uncivil, whatever the rules will be up to the OP.
• Members participating in this forum will be expected to follow the rules specified in the OP at all times. NO EXCEPTIONS.
• It is recommended that any rules specified in the OP be simple, easy to understand, kept to a reasonable minimum, and that they make sense. (If rules are too broad, vague, complicated, restrictive, or numerous, it will be impossible to moderate their intent and purpose.)

 

[Derideo_Te]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

 

[boedicca]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My problem is simple, the supposed ad hom.. the supposed definition and every other subjective rule assumes that there is in fact agreement that those things are the final arbiter. I don't know how many times I have seen either side claim a statement was something it was not simply because it was written by someone they disagreed with. The most common is the claim that someone is trolling or off topic for pointing out a related subject or clarifying something that simple was not true. Let the author decide what is and is not acceptable and then you decide if you want to participate based on those rules and restrictions. Every formal debate has rules and restrictions fr said debate. And they are not all uniform and the same.

My understanding of the purpose of the SDZ is that the OP will report to the mods if they believe something violates the rules. The mods will then make the decision based upon what has been stipulated for both the SDZ and the OP.

You are ignoring the fact that your laundry list is flawed. And that what you are trying to do is change the rules of the debate system to YOUR rules and ONLY your rules.

As a Reminder there is more then one dictionary and most of them have multiple meanings for a single word and they don't all agree. And then we have the wordsmiths, those that would play word games to change statements and arguments and facts. Or the people that claim any response they don't like is an an ad Hom attack. The ones that claim any response they don't like is off topic. Your list is a no more then you trying to set the rules for everyone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

Grow up and drop it. This thread is not a place for the two of you to post petty attacks back and forth.

 

[boedicca]

Selecting Agree is the discussion equivalent of putting on Pampers Pull Up Pants.

No thanks.

I defer to your personal knowledge on that subject matter.

I have no experience with the aforementioned Pampers.

Let me substitute a product with which you have significant personal experience: Depends.

Grow up and drop it. This thread is not a place for the two of you to post petty attacks back and forth.

Here's a little story about that: No.

You're not the boss of me.