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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Capstone]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

It makes true debate impossible.

 

[cereal_killer]

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]

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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]

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

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.

The Twitter rule

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.