Guidelines for Posting in the Debate Now Forum

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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.


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?

:wtf:

:lmao:
 
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?

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.
 
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?

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.


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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
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
 
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?
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

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?
 
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?
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

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

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

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. :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top