# Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum



## cereal_killer

*Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum*

Site wide rules apply.
Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
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 state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times. 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.)
***This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**

**If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**

Have fun and Enjoy!!*


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Thank you, getting sick of some of the snotty remarks and tired trash talk in some of the other forums. 

Nice tie.


----------



## Roadrunner

cereal_killer said:


> *Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum*
> 
> Site wide rules apply.
> Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
> 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.)
> ***This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**
> 
> **If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**
> 
> Have fun and Enjoy!!*


You are going to flag is so we don't track in shit?


----------



## percysunshine

The OP is now the Moderator?

I anticipate CK lounging on a beach in front of a clear aqua-blue Caribbean sea with a rum spritzer and bikini clad servants ... congratulating himself on this strategic move...

.


----------



## cereal_killer

percysunshine said:


> The OP is now the Moderator?
> 
> I anticipate CK lounging on a beach in front of a clear aqua-blue Caribbean sea with a rum spritzer and bikini clad servants ... congratulating himself on this strategic move...
> 
> .


I'm having trouble hearing you?!! What!!?? The waves are pretty loud out here, I'll get back to you when I can!!!!!!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

cereal_killer said:


> *Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum*
> 
> Site wide rules apply.
> Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
> 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.)
> ***This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**
> 
> **If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**
> 
> Have fun and Enjoy!!*



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.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum*
> 
> Site wide rules apply.
> Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
> 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.)
> ***This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**
> 
> **If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**
> 
> Have fun and Enjoy!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.


----------



## Capstone

stats said:
			
		

> That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.



Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Capstone said:


> stats said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
Click to expand...


The suggestion makes the OP the Lord High Decider of Dictionary Definitions and woe betide those that disagree for the wrath of the moderators shall be upon their heads.


----------



## Foxfyre

Capstone said:


> stats said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  That was my point.  Would you believe there are people who get their jollies by refusing to discuss the topic as defined and who insist on making the topic something else?  And getting into a war over definitions and semantics is one of their favorite means of doing that.

I am loving the Structured Debate forum because it does give the thread author some control on how the discussion will be focused.  Kudos to C_K and the mods for putting it together.

I just hope there are enough people at USMB who enjoy an intelligent discussion unhampered by the distractors and who will start participating.  If not, it was a good experiment.


----------



## Capstone

Derideo_Te said:


> The suggestion makes the OP the Lord High Decider of Dictionary Definitions...



Who better to decide on the intended meanings of the terms in the OP than the person who _intentionally_ used them to lay out the parameters of a *structured debate*?

Also, just because something is "deemed advisable" doesn't mean it's mandatory. Neither is anyone's particpation in any debate format he or she doesn't like. Those who like to bicker over semantics instead of addressing the issues are free to stick to the debates where such behavior is allowed (or at least not explicitly disallowed).

This isn't rocket science. The forum is clearly intended for exclusive debate. Accordingly, certain behaviors and tactics will be allowed in some threads and disallowed in others; and people can freely pick and choose among the debates they want to participate in (or not) on those grounds.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dude, CK, this is a smash hit. You've earned that trip to the beach man. The waves need to be moderated!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Derideo_Te said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stats said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That recommendation sounds much more like a discussion-killer to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for those who like to obfuscate via the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of individual words and terms, creating and knocking down strawmen as opposed to addressing their opponents' arguments. In other words, the only discussion in danger of losing its life by way of Foxfyre's suggestion...is the kind that should have never been given life in a formal debate forum in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The suggestion makes the OP the Lord High Decider of Dictionary Definitions and woe betide those that disagree for the wrath of the moderators shall be upon their heads.
Click to expand...



It makes true debate impossible.


----------



## cereal_killer

cereal_killer said:


> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.


Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.

Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst


----------



## April

cereal_killer said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
Click to expand...


----------



## Derideo_Te

cereal_killer said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
Click to expand...




A judgement worthy of Solomon! 

Might I suggest that each rule must be succinct and limited to no more than 140 characters? Otherwise there could be paragraphs of definitions under a "single" rule.


----------



## rightwinger

Derideo_Te said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A judgement worthy of Solomon!
> 
> Might I suggest that each rule must be succinct and limited to no more than 140 characters? Otherwise there could be paragraphs of definitions under a "single" rule.
Click to expand...

 
The Twitter rule


----------



## Foxfyre

cereal_killer said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
Click to expand...


I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?

For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule.  That takes up two rules.  And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate.  Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule?  I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.

Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.


----------



## Osomir

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?
> 
> For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule.  That takes up two rules.  And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate.  Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule?  I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.
> 
> Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.
Click to expand...


It would seem to make sense to have the 'no ad hominem' and 'stay on topic' aspects of discourse covered by the general sub-forum rules and more strictly moderated here than in other sub-forums; leaving you three rules that rest outside of the basics such as that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Osomir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?
> 
> For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule.  That takes up two rules.  And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate.  Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule?  I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.
> 
> Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem to make sense to have the 'no ad hominem' and 'stay on topic' aspects of discourse covered by the general sub-forum rules and more strictly moderated here than in other sub-forums; leaving you three rules that rest outside of the basics such as that.
Click to expand...


That is always going to be a rule for my threads, but there are some who enjoy insulting other members and/or finding creative ways to do that.  For them it is fun and games and sport.  If they want a structured debate that includes that, I think they should be able to have that.  I probably won't participate because such is not fun and games to me and usually annoys if not downright angers or frustrates me when it destroys what would otherwise have been an interesting discussion. 

But each to their own.  We can't have structured debate if everybody can't set the rules they want to have it.


----------



## cereal_killer

Osomir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP will clearly state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents, one of the guidelines has been changed. *A total of 3 rules or less is now in effect*. The amount of rules in some threads was getting too confusing, thus muddying up debates and hindering moderation.
> 
> Coyote AngelsNDemons Foxfyre TemplarKormac Derideo_Te Statistikhengst
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will abide by the three-rule rule of course, but is there any way you could expand that to four?
> 
> For my threads I need the standard "no ad hominem" rule and "stay on topic" rule.  That takes up two rules.  And that leaves me only one additional rule to structure the debate.  Or would it be satisfactory to combine stay on topic and no hominem into one rule?  I can easily then use the other two to structure the discussion.
> 
> Certainly packing more than one component into a rule defeats the purpose of limiting the number of rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem to make sense to have the 'no ad hominem' and 'stay on topic' aspects of discourse covered by the general sub-forum rules and more strictly moderated here than in other sub-forums; leaving you three rules that rest outside of the basics such as that.
Click to expand...

Those are covered by the general forum guidelines. Site wide rules apply.


----------



## Spinster

Thanks to those whose care and thoughtfulness went into making this such a delightful forum.


----------



## Ravi

Spinster said:


> Thanks to those whose care and thoughtfulness went into making this such a delightful forum.


You are so welcome!


----------



## Dante

cereal_killer said:


> *Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum*
> 
> Site wide rules apply.
> Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
> 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 state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times. 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.)
> ***This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**
> 
> **If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**
> 
> Have fun and Enjoy!!*


 
especially this: 

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.)


----------



## Sun Devil 92

I've asked this before...no answer.

Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?


----------



## Foxfyre

Sun Devil 92 said:


> I've asked this before...no answer.
> 
> Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?



I don't believe so Sun Devil.  But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread.  Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum.  Or temporarily banned from USMB.  Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.

I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Foxfyre said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before...no answer.
> 
> Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe so Sun Devil.  But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread.  Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum.  Or temporarily banned from USMB.  Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.
> 
> I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.
Click to expand...


Most unfortunate.

There are certain posters, I would just as soon stay away from and keep out of any threads I might start.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before...no answer.
> 
> Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe so Sun Devil.  But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread.  Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum.  Or temporarily banned from USMB.  Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.
> 
> I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most unfortunate.
> 
> There are certain posters, I would just as soon stay away from and keep out of any threads I might start.
Click to expand...


Well put your threads in the SDZ and you can specify rules that will help some to keep them reined in.  You're allowed three rules to specify how you want to run your thread.


----------



## Gracie

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this before...no answer.
> 
> Can an OP forbid particular posters from posting to their thread ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe so Sun Devil.  But. . . .if enough posts are reported and the mod team judges the reports valid, the member can be thread banned--not able to log into that thread.  Or forum banned--can't log into a specific forum.  Or temporarily banned from USMB.  Or if an offense is sufficiently serious, permabanned.
> 
> I can see with a great deal of confidence that you have to work at it pretty hard to get banned anywhere though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most unfortunate.
> 
> There are certain posters, I would just as soon stay away from and keep out of any threads I might start.
Click to expand...

Put them on ignore. If they do come to your thread, you won't see what they post.


----------



## Wake

I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Wake said:


> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.




That would require giving that member mod priviledges, I think.


----------



## Pogo

Wake said:


> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.



Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.

It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.
> 
> It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.
Click to expand...


Well then, the OP would learn not to do that if he or she wanted an active discussion wouldn't he or she?  And if that happens, what is that to anybody other than the OP?  My understanding of the SDZ was a special forum for those WHO WANT to participate to be able to have some control over a discussion.  I had pretty well given it up as an exercise in futility because of those who weren't going to allow that to happen if they could prevent it, but missed the challenge so tried it again today.

And alas, the thread is now locked.  

Again it was a very good idea, but maybe its time has not yet come.


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.
> 
> It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.
Click to expand...







That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.


----------



## Wake

cereal_killer , do you think this forum needs more bite to make sure the discussions are kept orderly?

If I were given very, very specific mod powers that pertained only to the thread I start in this forum (thread-banning), I can guarantee this forum will be a success. There are people here who really do want a structured and peaceful discussion. I would put an end to disorderly behavior in my threads quickly, and ensure that the conversations going on within the thread continue well.

This subforum is a good idea. There should be a way that the OPs in this subforum are given some leverage of their own (that must not be abused) to maintain the structured integrity of their threads. I would really appreciate hearing what you think on this CK.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wake said:


> cereal_killer , do you think this forum needs more bite to make sure the discussions are kept orderly?
> 
> If I were given very, very specific mod powers that pertained only to the thread I start in this forum (thread-banning), I can guarantee this forum will be a success. There are people here who really do want a structured and peaceful discussion. I would put an end to disorderly behavior in my threads quickly, and ensure that the conversations going on within the thread continue well.
> 
> This subforum is a good idea. There should be a way that the OPs in this subforum are given some leverage of their own (that must not be abused) to maintain the structured integrity of their threads. I would really appreciate hearing what you think on this CK.



When this forum was first created, C_K assured us that the thread rules would be enforced.  But given the determination of some to make sure the SDZ does NOT succeed, I know it quickly became a real pain in the butt for the mods.

I am thinking about whether I would want thread ban powers, but that does merit some consideration if the software would accommodate that.  It certainly would relieve the pressure on the mods to restore order or to make the sometimes really rough decisions about whether infractions were severe enough to merit thread banning.

But given the fact that many OPs have no training in modding a forum or other such skills, I don't think the OP should have any power to add to a member's 'infraction score'.  In other words, if somebody got kicked out of a SDZ thread, it probably shouldn't go on his/her permanent record.


----------



## Wake

If it were possible... that the thread-starter could only thread-ban posters only from his or her thread... that'd solve it in a heart-beat. If the software makes it possible, that would make all of this possible without putting a burden on staff, if at all.


----------



## Wake

In fact, if it is possible, I could the infraction part being removed, and simply giving thread-starters the option to thread-ban disruptive members in a pre-defined, legitimate way.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wake said:


> If it were possible... that the thread-starter could only thread-ban posters only from his or her thread... that'd solve it in a heart-beat. If the software makes it possible, that would make all of this possible without putting a burden on staff, if at all.



I understand and I really appreciate the suggestion.  I'm just struggling with whether I want even that small amount of power.    But if we do initiate that capability for the OP, and the OP exercised it, again I would not want that kind of ban to go against a member's permanent record.


----------



## Pogo

ogue


Wake said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.
> 
> It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP.  I was referring to actually controlling the flow of *opinion *-- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with.  If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.

The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ.  Assuming those rules get enforced.


----------



## Wake

If this forum is still in beta, and the software is possible, I could try making a thread in this forum with that ability. Being a moderator for Mafia games, I understand and have experienced thread-banning players who would not cooperate or adhere to the rules. As there, if we were to test this, I would issue a general warning, and after that, thread-ban the deliberately-offending poster.


----------



## Wake

Foxfyre said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were possible... that the thread-starter could only thread-ban posters only from his or her thread... that'd solve it in a heart-beat. If the software makes it possible, that would make all of this possible without putting a burden on staff, if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand and I really appreciate the suggestion.  I'm just struggling with whether I want even that small amount of power.    But if we do initiate that capability for the OP, and the OP exercised it, again I would not want that kind of ban to go against a member's permanent record.
Click to expand...


As I envision it, I don't think any of the penalties should affect the offending poster's record.

If the poster is disrupting, the OP can thread-ban that player, but it would not affect that person's record. It would only serve to maintain peace on that one and only thread.

If that poster is thread-banned, he's done, kaput, from that one thread, problem-solved, no muss and fuss for anyone else, including staff. This includes the issue of the permanent record. Just give the disruptive person a permanent vacation from the thread.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> ogue
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.
> 
> It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP.  I was referring to actually controlling the flow of *opinion *-- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with.  If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.
> 
> The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ.  Assuming those rules get enforced.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't think the OP could delete posts--I really don't like the idea of deleting posts except those that are extremely unacceptable and that should be done by a mod.  But I sure would like a bit more ability to enforce the thread rules.


----------



## Wake

The OP wouldn't delete or edit posts. Opinions would be allowed, but if any of it involves a nasty, mean, or personal element then it should be dealt with.

If a discussion is made on topic X, but a couple posters decide to make it a discussion about topic C, and some of them do start crossing the line, then they can and should be thread-banned by the OP. That is it. No more, no less, peaceful thread.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ogue
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.
> 
> It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP.  I was referring to actually controlling the flow of *opinion *-- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with.  If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.
> 
> The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ.  Assuming those rules get enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think the OP could delete posts--I really don't like the idea of deleting posts except those that are extremely unacceptable and that should be done by a mod.  But I sure would like a bit more ability to enforce the thread rules.
Click to expand...


-- which means treating any opinion you don't like as being "against the thread rules" and having a mod remove them.   As I said, it's already happened. 

When "enforcing thread rules" is interpreted that broadly, nobody gets to express an opinion that doesn't wash with what the OP wants to see.

And that's just wrong.  It produces an echo chamber.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ogue
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to give this a try, because the concept is intriguing.
> 
> Regarding the enforcement of the rules, can the thread starter ban members from his or her thread? Deep down I feel that the thread starter should be more enabled to enforce his or her rules, otherwise it seems chaos can break out quickly, and the meaningful discussion becomes fouled. If the thread starter were to be given very select powers pertaining only to that thread, that person would be better able to ensure that the topic flows more smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Pandora's Box that opens is that the OP would be able to direct the thread whichever way they wanted it to go, and stifle any direction they don't want it to go -- making it in effect a monologue.
> 
> It's already happened, even without pseudo-mod power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to look at it. I think when toxic chaos is swirling about, sometimes peaceful places are merited. "OK, we're going to talk about this, and we're not going to smear poop on each other. And then we'll have dinner, have a fun time, and leave in light spirits." If anything, Pandora's Box had been opened a long time ago, and it's nice to have added structure here and there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to toxicity, or to bending rules set down in the OP.  I was referring to actually controlling the flow of *opinion *-- as in deleting ones the OP doesn't agree with.  If that actually is the intention, then the project is kind of pointless for a forum.
> 
> The disruptors/trollers, it seems the site already provides for that particularly in its more stringent levels such as the CDZ.  Assuming those rules get enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think the OP could delete posts--I really don't like the idea of deleting posts except those that are extremely unacceptable and that should be done by a mod.  But I sure would like a bit more ability to enforce the thread rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- which means treating any opinion you don't like as being "against the thread rules" and having a mod remove them.   As I said, it's already happened.
> 
> When "enforcing thread rules" is interpreted that broadly, nobody gets to express an opinion that doesn't wash with what the OP wants to see.
> 
> And that's just wrong.  It produces an echo chamber.
Click to expand...


But if it happens, how does that affect you in any way?  If you find that intolerable or you get banned for disagreeing with the OP, you simply go do something else.  I can't imagine reporting or warning anybody, much less banning somebody, because he/she disagreed with me.  I would guess at least 90% of USMBers wouldn't do that.  But if somebody did, what's the harm?  The OP is seen as a jerk and oh well.

The purpose of the teensy power Wake is suggesting here is to relieve the mods of a lot of unnecessary hassle and allow others to have a peaceful discussion sans those who do their damndest to disrupt threads and make sure no peaceful discussion can happen.


----------



## Wake

Pogo said:


> -- which means treating any opinion you don't like as being "against the thread rules" and having a mod remove them.   As I said, it's already happened.
> 
> When "enforcing thread rules" is interpreted that broadly, nobody gets to express an opinion that doesn't wash with what the OP wants to see.
> 
> And that's just wrong.  It produces an echo chamber.



So, please reread the post.

It's not about differences of opinion. Those are acceptable. It's when it crosses the line by being dishonest, disingenuous, and meant to cause harm and discord that it crosses the line. 

Unlike some, I don't mind differing opinions. They are what makes me grow as a person. You can differing opinions while showing respect, maturity, and civility.

That is the bottom line, and there is nothing wrong with that. An echo chamber is where you don't allow differences of opinion, including those that are in the acceptable range of civility, politeness, etc. That is not this, and I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that.


----------



## Wolfsister77

Just report the offending posts and the mods can remove them or give infractions or whatever and the thread should be allowed to continue just like it's done everywhere else.


----------



## Gracie

If you start a thread in the CDZ, it means exactly what it implies. CLEAN DEBATE. The op should be able to have some kind of ability to remove someone that is not CLEANLY debating and only is there to cause a ruckus.
I liken it to opening a small cafe that serves donuts and tea. Someone comes in and demands a beer. You don't serve beer. You don't have beer. The person starts throwing chairs around calling you a jerk for not having a beer, and after all, it IS a public cafe although beer is NOT on the menu. Do you have the right to kick this person out of the cafe when other patrons get to leave to get away from this person? Yes. 
Same concept.


----------



## Gracie

And, it eases the problems for staff...who I'm sure are getting mighty fed up chasing people around to give them diapers that keep being torn off for freedom of pooping all over the floor. This is a big board. Thousands of posts. Being in the CDZ eases some of those duties and headaches.


----------



## Wake

This would give leverage to thread-starters who want a peaceful, structured discussion without their threads being derailed or ruined by packs of unruly people.


----------



## Gracie

Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?


----------



## Wake

Gracie said:


> Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?



If this structured debate thing is in the CDZ (haven't checked yet, lol) then yes.


----------



## Gracie

Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.


----------



## Wake

Gracie said:


> Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.



If those creating these threads are provided a means to maintain order in their threads, it will cut down the level of disruption significantly. All it would take is a few clicks.

On the leaving part, it wouldn't be good to have them leave this site. If we make this area of USMB that encourages structured, civil discussion with the addition of granting the OP the ability to thread-ban disruptive members, it would create an atmosphere conducive to worthwhile discussion. It would help in attracting and maintaining people who don't like the toxic chaos found in some of the political threads elsewhere on this forum.


----------



## Gracie

Wake said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those creating these threads are provided a means to maintain order in their threads, it will cut down the level of disruption significantly. All it would take is a few clicks.
> 
> On the leaving part, it wouldn't be good to have them leave this site. If we make this area of USMB that encourages structured, civil discussion with the addition of granting the OP the ability to thread-ban disruptive members, it would create an atmosphere conducive to worthwhile discussion. It would help in attracting and maintaining people who don't like the toxic chaos found in some of the political threads elsewhere on this forum.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But, if it is a willy nilly OP Has Thread Banning Power over someone, it can and will be abused. So I would whittle it down to only a few forums within the whole board that is USMB. Religion would be one forum. CDZ another one.


----------



## Gracie

For example....Jeri starts threads in Religion forum and gets some hassle for it by those NOT christian. Sure, state your belief/case but it should be to learn or teach or muse on. Not belittle. And atheists have no business going in there just to ridicule those who do believe. When they do...and if they are not trying to understand or want others to understand their point of view in a civil manner..then make them go bye bye. They can start their own thread on the whys and wherefores of not believing.
If we could be allowed to moderate ourselves to some degree, it would be less hassle for staff, and members enjoy being here more often if there is some kind of structured protection against that sort of thing. Down There (FZ, etc)..they have their "spot". Where is ours?


----------



## Foxfyre

Wake said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this structured debate thing is in the CDZ (haven't checked yet, lol) then yes.
Click to expand...


The SDZ is not in the CDZ.  It is in the general forum area because there are no restrictions on subject matter and if the OP doesn't want a civil debate, he/she can have  an uncivil one which is not allowed in the CDZ.   Structured Discussion is intended to be what the OP wants it to be.


----------



## Judicial review

Gracie - WTF Woman?  Read CK post!!!!!


----------



## Wolfsister77

Not sure why the OP should get the power to remove people. That is the mod's responsibilities. It would be better to report them and have their posts deleted or have the mod thread ban them or give them warnings, infractions, whatever. It will be abused otherwise where people will remove people simply for disagreeing with them and what a pain in the ass to give individual power to certain people plus the complaints to staff if people feel they are being treated unfairly-nope not worth it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

If you give the OP the power to censor those that contribute to a thread for no other reason that that the OP doesn't like the opinion of the poster then Pogo is correct that all you have is a soapbox and not a discussion.

There is no point in calling this forum "structured discussion" if the OP can ban dissenting opinions. 

Without dissenting opinions there is no discussion that merits the term. 

For example an SDZ thread was created that had a rule that "banned" all posters with clown avis because the OP wanted to just have a "discussion" about the passengers in the clown car. 

Fair enough, the OP rule was that it wasn't an "structured discussion" at all, just a place for members who shared the same political leaning to state why one rightwing candidate was preferable to another. 

I don't have a problem with that as long as no one mistakes that for a "structured discussion" because it wasn't. 

But what it highlighted was the need for a place where opinions could be expressed amongst a group of like minded posters.

And that might well be what is needed and what FF was trying to do herself. 

The current SDZ is set up in a way that if FF wants to start a thread and specifically states that anyone who disagrees with her "definitions" is excluded from participating then sobeit. Her thread, her rules, she gets to say whatever she likes in her thread and if anyone breaks that rule she reports them and their posts are removed.

No additional powers need be granted to the OP.

And yes, SDZ threads limited to like minded posters are not true "structured discussions" but if there is a need for them then let's let them happen. Who knows, it might even reduce some of the incivility around here if posters have a place to express themselves without fear of being contradicted irrespective of how bizarre those opinions might be.

At least it might be worth experimenting with, cereal_killer. Give it a try for a couple of months and if it doesn't work you can shut it down again. No harm, no foul?


----------



## Foxfyre

Again I have NEVER reported anybody ever, anywhere, for disagreeing with me.  I would guess that at least 90% of the USMB members would not do that.  I have not and will not EVER report or discourage anybody for disagreeing with me.  But I have and will enforce rules when given authority or ability to do that.

But even if somebody did make a rule that nobody could disagree, how does that harm or hurt anybody else?  If somebody wants a thread with rules that keeps the trolls at bay, how does that hurt anybody?  Why is it so important to be able to disrupt, derail, or just generally make a mess of a thread?  Who is on a power trip?  The person who wants ability to have a structured discussion free of the childish and/or mean spirited trolls?  Or the person who demands that this be allowed?


----------



## Foxfyre

Wake said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter if its structured or clean? If someone can't have a discussion/debate on any topic without someone pulling down their pants and pooping on the floor to where the others who ARE discussing and debating civilly are actually leaving....then why bother to open the topic to begin with? They will just find another cafe that serves donuts and tea. Not beer and temper tantrums and poop all over the floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those creating these threads are provided a means to maintain order in their threads, it will cut down the level of disruption significantly. All it would take is a few clicks.
> 
> On the leaving part, it wouldn't be good to have them leave this site. If we make this area of USMB that encourages structured, civil discussion with the addition of granting the OP the ability to thread-ban disruptive members, it would create an atmosphere conducive to worthwhile discussion. It would help in attracting and maintaining people who don't like the toxic chaos found in some of the political threads elsewhere on this forum.
Click to expand...


I don't know how many USMB members would like a forum where intelligent discussion could take place.  But if there is a chance that there is enough of us to make the effort worth while, I sure would appreciate such a forum.  Like Gracie said, there really does need to be at least one place the trolls aren't allowed to derail, disrupt, or destroy the intent of a thread no matter how much they disrespect the OP or the subject matter.  I had high hopes for the SDZ but unless enough folks are interested in making it work, there isn't much point.  I still would like to see it work.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gracie said:


> Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?



The CDZ has its own rules.  I am arguing for the SDZ in this context which is a much different thing than the CDZ.  The SDZ is not exactly formal debate--you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed --but it is close enough to be a different kind of and interesting exercise IF the trolls are not allowed to destroy the threads.  We need to figure out how to accomplish that without overworking the mod staff.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear..this would apply ONLY in CDZ, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CDZ has its own rules.  I am arguing for the SDZ in this context which is a much different thing than the CDZ.  The SDZ is not exactly formal debate--you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed --but it is close enough to be a different kind of and interesting excercise IF the trolls are not allowed to destroy the threads.  We need to figure out how to accomplish that without overworking the mod staff.
Click to expand...



Sez who?

Three rules, if they are practical, are enough to facilitate an adult debate.

Are you saying that you need MORE rules in order to be able to debate?


----------



## Foxfyre

I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.




Oh, really?



> ...you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed...



Are those not your words?


----------



## Foxfyre

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those not your words?
Click to expand...


How about putting those words in their full context.  That would be much appreciated.  Taking words out of context or separating them from any qualifying statements and presenting them as something different from what the member obviously intended is quite dishonest you know.


----------



## Ravi

Statistikhengst said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those not your words?
Click to expand...

Bingo. You have to wonder if people grasp their own words.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those not your words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about putting those words in their full context.  That would be much appreciated.  Taking words out of context or separating them from any qualifying statements and presenting them as something different from what the member obviously intended is quite dishonest you know.
Click to expand...



Well, ok, if you insist, but in context of the entire text, nothing changes:



> The CDZ has its own rules. I am arguing for the SDZ in this context which is a much different thing than the CDZ. The SDZ is not exactly formal debate--*you can't have a formal debate with only three rules allowed* --but it is close enough to be a different kind of and interesting exercise IF the trolls are not allowed to destroy the threads. We need to figure out how to accomplish that without overworking the mod staff.




So, there was nothing dishonest about quoting only the sentence that was applicable. Nothing on either side of the statement changes the claim you made at all, in any way shape or form. The bolded can easily stand completely on it's own. Your claim that the SDZ is not exactly formal debate is also quite questionable, but you have every right to your opinion, of course.

The only person being dishonest here is you, for having claimed you never said what I quoted in the bolded in the first place. You wrote:




> I don't think I said or inferred that at all Stat.



Which is, of course, total bullhockey. You did say that, very exactly, and I have quoted it now TWICE. Need it bolder and in 7 point to refresh your memory, or what?

So, I will ask again: Do you really think that three rules is not enough for having a real debate?  How many rules do you think are necessary?


----------



## Foxfyre

Please take this someplace else Stat.  This is not the place to try to provoke Foxfyre.  This thread is devoted to policy and guidelines for the SDZ.  Please respect that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is the real issue: "But I have and will enforce rules when given authority or ability to do that."  She wants to be able to control speech so that it does not allow far right and libertarian principles to be characterized as negative within a context of discussion.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Foxfyre said:


> Please take this someplace else Stat.  This is not the place to try to provoke Foxfyre.  This thread is devoted to policy and guidelines for the SDZ.  Please respect that.




*No.* You made a statement about debate itself, and that statement, which I find to be totally false, is absolutely cogent to this thread and this sub-forum.

I have complete understanding for you if you are_ not_ willing to stand by your own words. Everyone can make mistakes. I'm cool with that.

But where is it is written that 3 rules is not enough for a real debate? Care to answer?  I am not trying to provoke you. I am trying to get you to finally take responsibility for your words instead of dancing in the daisies as if it never happened.

Do you not see that you seriously damage your credibility when you make such a blanket statement, then deny it, then claim it is an issue of context and then, when all other options are exhausted, you go the "take this somewhere else" route?

Too funny.


----------



## cereal_killer

Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.

I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. * 

The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.

We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.


----------



## Foxfyre

cereal_killer said:


> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.



I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.

I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?


----------



## cereal_killer

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).

It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face avie cannot participate.
*
That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.

Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings


----------



## Foxfyre

cereal_killer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).
> 
> It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face can participate.
> *
> That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings
Click to expand...


Okay, but I bet if you poll your mods, they are getting really REALLY tired of the reports.  And in a recent discussion with one mod--one I respect, admire, and like without reservation--I think I was advised that unless I report EVERY violation by EVERY member, that the reports wouldn't be taken seriously?  It was not phrased exactly like that but that was kind of the gist of it I think.

I prefer to not to report every minor slip or infraction--to me that would be silly most especially when it was obviously unintended.  But those who are deliberately trying to derail the thread and/or disrupt the discussion and/or pick a fight I do report.  And as a result my last thread in the SDZ was locked.   (It has been graciously reopened.)

But as yet, when I have begged that an individual be removed from the thread, that has not yet happened I don't believe.

What I suggest is the OP give the offender three warnings in the thread and make a note of the offending posts.  Then on the 4th infraction, send the offending post numbers in a report and ask that the offender be removed from the thread.  Possible?


----------



## Valerie

wait, i have a question.  is it within the rules to use quotes in your signature line?  




















cereal_killer said:


> *Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face cannot participate.*


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).
> 
> It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face can participate.
> *
> That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, but I bet if you poll your mods, they are getting really REALLY tired of the reports.  And in a recent discussion with one mod--one I respect, admire, and like without reservation--I think I was advised that unless I report EVERY violation by EVERY member, that the reports wouldn't be taken seriously?  It was not phrased exactly like that but that was kind of the gist of it I think.
> 
> I prefer to not to report every minor slip or infraction--to me that would be silly most especially when it was obviously unintended.  But those who are deliberately trying to derail the thread and/or disrupt the discussion and/or pick a fight I do report.  And as a result my last thread in the SDZ was locked.   (It has been graciously reopened.)
> 
> But as yet, when I have begged that an individual be removed from the thread, that has not yet happened I don't believe.
> 
> What I suggest is the OP give the offender three warnings in the thread and make a note of the offending posts.  Then on the 4th infraction, send the offending post numbers in a report and ask that the offender be removed from the thread.  Possible?
Click to expand...

Sure it has happened. I got banned from one of your threads.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).
> 
> It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face can participate.
> *
> That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, but I bet if you poll your mods, they are getting really REALLY tired of the reports.  And in a recent discussion with one mod--one I respect, admire, and like without reservation--I think I was advised that unless I report EVERY violation by EVERY member, that the reports wouldn't be taken seriously?  It was not phrased exactly like that but that was kind of the gist of it I think.
> 
> I prefer to not to report every minor slip or infraction--to me that would be silly most especially when it was obviously unintended.  But those who are deliberately trying to derail the thread and/or disrupt the discussion and/or pick a fight I do report.  And as a result my last thread in the SDZ was locked.   (It has been graciously reopened.)
> 
> But as yet, when I have begged that an individual be removed from the thread, that has not yet happened I don't believe.
> 
> What I suggest is the OP give the offender three warnings in the thread and make a note of the offending posts.  Then on the 4th infraction, send the offending post numbers in a report and ask that the offender be removed from the thread.  Possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it has happened. I got banned from one of your threads.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  I don't remember reporting you but I don't remember most of the few reports I make.  Must have been one heck of a violation.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Sure it has happened. I got banned from one of your threads.




were you throwing food in there or what?


----------



## cereal_killer

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).
> 
> It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face can participate.
> *
> That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, but I bet if you poll your mods, they are getting really REALLY tired of the reports. * And in a recent discussion with one mod--one I respect, admire, and like without reservation--I think I was advised that unless I report EVERY violation by EVERY member, that the reports wouldn't be taken seriously?*  It was not phrased exactly like that but that was kind of the gist of it I think.
> 
> I prefer to not to report every minor slip or infraction--to me that would be silly most especially when it was obviously unintended.  But those who are deliberately trying to derail the thread and/or disrupt the discussion and/or pick a fight I do report.  And as a result my last thread in the SDZ was locked.   (It has been graciously reopened.)
> 
> But as yet, when I have begged that an individual be removed from the thread, that has not yet happened I don't believe.
> 
> *What I suggest is the OP give the offender three warnings in the thread and make a note of the offending posts.  Then on the 4th infraction, send the offending post numbers in a report and ask that the offender be removed from the thread.  Possible?*
Click to expand...


I think you may have misinterpreted what was said. There's no way humanly possible that members can report every violation by every member before we take the report seriously. If that were the case everyone, including us, should just throw in the towel now 

In regards to thread bans being possible? Very possible. How? By doing exactly what you are proposing. If members want to compile a list of links from the thread that shows Coyote (known trouble maker) openly violating the thread guidelines. We can easily remove her from it. The more info we have the better. Staff simply don't have time to wade through and entire thread so if the info is right at their finger tips they can just go "Yeah 3 offending posts, time to remove them from the thread and issue a warning"


----------



## Foxfyre

cereal_killer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).
> 
> It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face can participate.
> *
> That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, but I bet if you poll your mods, they are getting really REALLY tired of the reports. * And in a recent discussion with one mod--one I respect, admire, and like without reservation--I think I was advised that unless I report EVERY violation by EVERY member, that the reports wouldn't be taken seriously?*  It was not phrased exactly like that but that was kind of the gist of it I think.
> 
> I prefer to not to report every minor slip or infraction--to me that would be silly most especially when it was obviously unintended.  But those who are deliberately trying to derail the thread and/or disrupt the discussion and/or pick a fight I do report.  And as a result my last thread in the SDZ was locked.   (It has been graciously reopened.)
> 
> But as yet, when I have begged that an individual be removed from the thread, that has not yet happened I don't believe.
> 
> *What I suggest is the OP give the offender three warnings in the thread and make a note of the offending posts.  Then on the 4th infraction, send the offending post numbers in a report and ask that the offender be removed from the thread.  Possible?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may have misinterpreted what was said. There's no way humanly possible that members can report every violation by every member before we take the report seriously. If that were the case everyone, including us, should just throw in the towel now
> 
> In regards to thread bans being possible? Very possible. How? By doing exactly what you are proposing. If members want to compile a list of links from the thread that shows Coyote (known trouble maker) openly violating the thread guidelines. We can easily remove her from it. The more info we have the better. Staff simply don't have time to wade through and entire thread so if the info is right at their finger tips they can just go "Yeah 3 offending posts, time to remove them from the thread and issue a warning"
Click to expand...


Sounds like a plan  Could that be added to the guidelines?  And don't use Coyote for an example LOL--she's one of my favorite people here and I can't imagine her EVER getting reported much less thread banned.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and gents we cannot make everyone a moderator of their thread. I'd have to manually add every member to the section and thats simply not feasible.
> 
> I don't understand how people cannot follow a simple set of guidelines set forth by the OP. This forum was created for everyone to use, not just a select few. FoxFyre, or any other member for that matter, can create a thread that is open for a structured debate how they see fit. We're not here to judge who's thread is viable or who's is not. If you don't like the thread and/or the rules set forth by the op *DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. *
> 
> The beauty of this forum is that if you don't like a thread because of rules 1, 2, 3,....... Start your own thread with your own rules. This is what the forum is for. Create threads/topics that interest you, implement a few rules for the debate and open it up for discussion. The USMB community deserves a forum where they can come to to get away from trolling and derailing, and this is why the forum was created. Not everyone will like it, but thats life. Don't use the forum if you don't like it.
> 
> We're not curing cancer in here folks. This is all VERY easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that and you know that C_K, but the concept seems to be escaping some including I think even some of the mod squad who are having to field the MANY reports resulting from those who intend to disrupt or derail a SDZ thread.
> 
> I do appreciate that the software makes it unfeasible for the OP to moderate his/her own thread with thread bans.  But would it be possible instead of just making report after report of those who are there to be disruptive--that has to be terribly annoying to the mods who don't have time to read a whole thread--that the OP can request removal of an offender and that can be done provided a prescribed number of warnings have been given in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is already in effect. If we have to come down here 3X for any given member they are removed from the forum permanently. Their offending posts will also be removed (if warranted).
> 
> It's helps in the report if members add a note.* Ex: Rule 3 says anyone using a Republican/Democrat in clown face can participate.
> *
> That way we can look at it immediately and decide what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> Remember this forum will work if people take the time to report the offenders. They will either take the hint and stop being disruptive or they'll wash out (be removed) due to too many warnings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, but I bet if you poll your mods, they are getting really REALLY tired of the reports. * And in a recent discussion with one mod--one I respect, admire, and like without reservation--I think I was advised that unless I report EVERY violation by EVERY member, that the reports wouldn't be taken seriously?*  It was not phrased exactly like that but that was kind of the gist of it I think.
> 
> I prefer to not to report every minor slip or infraction--to me that would be silly most especially when it was obviously unintended.  But those who are deliberately trying to derail the thread and/or disrupt the discussion and/or pick a fight I do report.  And as a result my last thread in the SDZ was locked.   (It has been graciously reopened.)
> 
> But as yet, when I have begged that an individual be removed from the thread, that has not yet happened I don't believe.
> 
> *What I suggest is the OP give the offender three warnings in the thread and make a note of the offending posts.  Then on the 4th infraction, send the offending post numbers in a report and ask that the offender be removed from the thread.  Possible?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may have misinterpreted what was said. There's no way humanly possible that members can report every violation by every member before we take the report seriously. If that were the case everyone, including us, should just throw in the towel now
> 
> In regards to thread bans being possible? Very possible. How? By doing exactly what you are proposing. If members want to compile a list of links from the thread that shows Coyote (known trouble maker) openly violating the thread guidelines. We can easily remove her from it. The more info we have the better. Staff simply don't have time to wade through and entire thread so if the info is right at their finger tips they can just go "Yeah 3 offending posts, time to remove them from the thread and issue a warning"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan  Could that be added to the guidelines?  And don't use Coyote for an example LOL--she's one of my favorite people here and I can't imagine her EVER getting reported much less thread banned.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

cereal_killer said:


> *Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum*
> 
> Site wide rules apply.
> Zone 2 rules apply. (thread title and opening post, keep it reasonably civil or risk thread being moved)
> 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 state what additional rules (3 or less) will apply to the discussion. The maximum total of three (3) rules MUST be adhered to at all times. 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.)
> ***This forum is in beta and the guidelines/format MAY change as the forum begins to take shape. We do ask that members please respect the guidelines set forth by the members who create threads in order to keep the forum flowing and "trouble-free"**
> 
> **If members can't play nice and follow a simple set of guidelines, thread bans and/or removal from the Debate Now forum will occur**
> 
> Have fun and Enjoy!!*



Question about the CDZ if you please C_K:

Does it have to be specifically debate?

I'd like to see a thread sharing Katrina pictures/stories but without the relentless partisan bickering over "it's your guys' fault, not my guys' fault".  But it would be storytelling and illustration, not actual debate.

Could I do that?


----------



## 320 Years of History

Are the members here actually willing to participate in a structured debate, that is, one comprised of dialectically structured arguments?  I don't think they are.


----------



## I amso IR

Moving right along, to the "Rubber Room".


----------



## usmbguest5318

Oops


----------



## sparky

Yet another thread after forum _decorum_.

Look, if i'm _outta line_ pointing this out , i've wide enough shoulders to _accept_ it

Keep in mind i_ read _here , more than _post_ here

IF you folks want better '_debate_' , then _*try*_ and be a better debater

Don't go off layin' it on the site or mods 

Take some *PERSONAL *responsibility in what you post

_You'll_ be better, the _debate_ will be better, and this_ place _will be better if YOU do so

*THX*

~S~


----------

