Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[Sun Devil 92]

If the SDZ is going to just be the forum for ridiculous partisan redefinition of dictionary terms then it might as well be in the Taunting Area.

I would argue that establishing definitions is important to any debate. If you can't agree on defintions, the debate is pretty much going to be a waste of time.

I agree with your premise on the condition that the definitions are universally agreed upon by credible non partisan sources like the Dictionary.

However the reality in the SDZ is that some choose to invent arbitrary definitions that are not in the dictionary or any other credible non partisan source. This thread was calling that out since it was abuses of that nature that were, and still are, occurring in the SDZ.

In situations where such arbitrary definitions are forced into a discussion.....it is time to stop participating in that discussion.

And possibly time to start another thread that debates the definition in question !

I simply see no need to proceed in an "argument" if we don't agree on the meaning of words.

Your position allows falsehoods to go unchallenged. Holding people accountable for what they post is a fundamental principle of good debate.

The problem is establishing the falsehood. All I am saying is that if you look at something and and call it blue and I look at the same thing and call it green....we have a problem. Until that is resolved....it seems pointless to continue.

To your last statement, I agree. And I think what you are saying is that the OP is not the one to hold others accountable. I agree with that also.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It would seem that the OP should recruit three people to serve as judges or arbiters for the thread. The would be expected to judge...not by the rules of the OP...but to some general rules. With time, good judges would be identified.

If I went to a thread and I didn't like the judges.....I would pass.

It would cut down on the amount of useless posts that clutter a thread.

I would suggest that it goes even further. All alleged violations of USMB rules should be adjudicated by 3 mods in every instance. There should one liberal, one conservative and one independent moderate on every infraction. While it might be more work for the mods it would ensure that infractions were evenly administered. The current system doesn't have that safeguard in place which opens it up for partisan abuse. I wish that it weren't so but that is the current reality and it has been voiced by both sides.

Disclaimer: The suggestion above is not intended to be a reflection on any specific moderator action(s). It is merely an observation on how the current system can achieve a greater degree of fairness and balance and improve the overall USMB experience for all members in my opinion.

We generally do not discuss the process of how we "adjudicate". I will say that your description is actually not far from the truth - most major decisions are made with the input of as many of the staff as possible, and we almost always agree from the get-go.

Accusations of bias are not evidence of bias. Personally, I have been accused of bias by the left and the right in approximately equal amounts - which I take as a sign that I'm doing something right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Structured debate forms encourage totalitarian discussions.

With all due respect, it would be great to see the reasoning behind this statement.

Possibly the issue is in the "structure" ?

When I think of a structured debate, I am thinking of a sterotypical debate where people take turns arguing on behalf of opposing points of view.

Or are you referencing this forum alone (the statement seems generalized to me...so I apologize if I don't see the difference).

Finally, it would seem that the term totalitarian discussion is an oxymoron. There would be no discussion in an instance where a moderator or OP could simply cull anything they desire regardless of criteria.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Structured debate forms encourage totalitarian discussions.

With all due respect, it would be great to see the reasoning behind this statement.

Possibly the issue is in the "structure" ?

When I think of a structured debate, I am thinking of a sterotypical debate where people take turns arguing on behalf of opposing points of view.

Or are you referencing this forum alone (the statement seems generalized to me...so I apologize if I don't see the difference).

Finally, it would seem that the term totalitarian discussion is an oxymoron. There would be no discussion in an instance where a moderator or OP could simply cull anything they desire regardless of criteria.

The intent of having a structured debate is as you have described. The practice is turning out to be as Jake describes.

OP's become martinets and report whatever they feel is inappropriate even when it is entirely legitimate. I take extra precautions to make copies of all of my posts in the SDZ so that I can reference them in case they are arbitrarily deleted for "violating" the OP's misperception of what is allowed.

A case in point was directly quoting the OP and asking questions as to why they made that statement in the OP. The OP reported it as a "violation" when it is perfectly legitimate to quote the OP and to question it. What would be the point of a structured debate if that was not allowed?

So to your point about finding a panel of fair minded "judges", we need to begin with finding OP's who are willing to deal with legitimate criticism of their positions first IMO.

 

[Foxfyre]

Structured debate forms encourage totalitarian discussions.

With all due respect, it would be great to see the reasoning behind this statement.

Possibly the issue is in the "structure" ?

When I think of a structured debate, I am thinking of a sterotypical debate where people take turns arguing on behalf of opposing points of view.

Or are you referencing this forum alone (the statement seems generalized to me...so I apologize if I don't see the difference).

Finally, it would seem that the term totalitarian discussion is an oxymoron. There would be no discussion in an instance where a moderator or OP could simply cull anything they desire regardless of criteria.

The intent of the Structured Debate Zone was not to structure formal debate unless the author of the OP wanted that. The intent was to give the thread author some control over the discussion and how it would be conducted and that left possibilities open for a great deal of innovation..

Unfortunately I think USMB has more than its fair share of childish and/or mean spirited types who will use almost any tactic to provoke nastiness or derail a thread especially if it is authored by somebody they don't like. The CDZ has just challenged them to find more creative ways to do that so they don't quite violate the rules sufficiently to get thread banned or forum banned or USMB banned. So even reporting them has had almost no noticeable effect.

And there are also those who resent any changes from the 'good old days'. Some have characterized the new forum in intentionally or unintentionally dishonest ways which has influenced others to stay away.

In other words it could have been a really fun thing and added a new dimension to USMB. But I fear those who were determined to make sure it wouldn't work effectively have pretty well accomplished their goal.

Oh well. It was a good idea, but we can't win them all. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to make the forum better though.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that the OP in this thread dislikes #6 because it prevents respondents from bringing specious tertiary issues to the topic. In other words, if they cannot derail the thread, they feel it is censorship.
...

This is My opinion. I think that the OP is just upset that he cannot call the people he disagrees with names.

Let me put it this way:

Say I start a topic and have these rules:
1. Those that agree with me will not have to verify their "facts."
2. Those that disagree with me must provide verification of their "facts."
3. I will have final say on whether the verification source is legitimate or not.

It's no more that a circlejerk/propaganda/troll thread disguised as legitimate debate.



Perhaps a uniform (and very specific) set of rules should be listed for the forum. The individual OPs could choose to omit one or more of the rules for their particular debate, but they couldn't invent new rules or redefine any existing rules.

If someone started a debate with that structure, I would pass on by and not abuse My time by trying to force My own rules into the thread.

And that's the simple solution isn't it? If you don't like the rules established for a Structured Debate, then just don't participate in that thread. It really negates the whole concept of a structured debate if the critics can dictate to the thread author how the rules must be specified. You don't like the rules? Then don't participate. It really is that simple.

What I appreciate about the threads I've read so far in this forum is that they demonstrate people are thinking. They are spending time structuring up a case and putting it out that way.

This is actually very promising.

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

 

[Ravi]

The answer is still yes. Some people need to define words and be protected from objections.

 

[dblack]

USMB has no power, whatsoever, to violate our free speech rights. They can facilitate us exercise them, or not. But they could never violate them.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think that the OP in this thread dislikes #6 because it prevents respondents from bringing specious tertiary issues to the topic. In other words, if they cannot derail the thread, they feel it is censorship.
...

This is My opinion. I think that the OP is just upset that he cannot call the people he disagrees with names.

Let me put it this way:

Say I start a topic and have these rules:
1. Those that agree with me will not have to verify their "facts."
2. Those that disagree with me must provide verification of their "facts."
3. I will have final say on whether the verification source is legitimate or not.

It's no more that a circlejerk/propaganda/troll thread disguised as legitimate debate.



Perhaps a uniform (and very specific) set of rules should be listed for the forum. The individual OPs could choose to omit one or more of the rules for their particular debate, but they couldn't invent new rules or redefine any existing rules.

If someone started a debate with that structure, I would pass on by and not abuse My time by trying to force My own rules into the thread.

And that's the simple solution isn't it? If you don't like the rules established for a Structured Debate, then just don't participate in that thread. It really negates the whole concept of a structured debate if the critics can dictate to the thread author how the rules must be specified. You don't like the rules? Then don't participate. It really is that simple.

What I appreciate about the threads I've read so far in this forum is that they demonstrate people are thinking. They are spending time structuring up a case and putting it out that way.

This is actually very promising.

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

I don't have the experience that you have.

However, in reading the first page of threads in the CDZ...I see little in the way of what I call "debate".

That is my somewhat limited perspective.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me put it this way:

Say I start a topic and have these rules:
1. Those that agree with me will not have to verify their "facts."
2. Those that disagree with me must provide verification of their "facts."
3. I will have final say on whether the verification source is legitimate or not.

It's no more that a circlejerk/propaganda/troll thread disguised as legitimate debate.



Perhaps a uniform (and very specific) set of rules should be listed for the forum. The individual OPs could choose to omit one or more of the rules for their particular debate, but they couldn't invent new rules or redefine any existing rules.

If someone started a debate with that structure, I would pass on by and not abuse My time by trying to force My own rules into the thread.

And that's the simple solution isn't it? If you don't like the rules established for a Structured Debate, then just don't participate in that thread. It really negates the whole concept of a structured debate if the critics can dictate to the thread author how the rules must be specified. You don't like the rules? Then don't participate. It really is that simple.

What I appreciate about the threads I've read so far in this forum is that they demonstrate people are thinking. They are spending time structuring up a case and putting it out that way.

This is actually very promising.

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

I don't have the experience that you have.

However, in reading the first page of threads in the CDZ...I see little in the way of what I call "debate".

That is my somewhat limited perspective.

That is why the forum was called Structured DISCUSSION Zone.

You really can't have true debate in this format--it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and is even less aesthetically satisfying.

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

But every now and then I run across people who really can and will actually have an intelligent discussion about something and are able to disagree without being disagreeable. And then it can really be fun. That was the goal of the CDZ. Hasn't worked out too well, but oh well. Again, it was a good idea.

 

[dblack]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

Equally so is excluding the intentions and motivations behind the topic of the "discussion".

And most unrealistic of all is demanding that the OP be excluded from any legitimate criticism.

So a "discussion" based on a falsehood that no one is allowed to expose or legitimately criticize is not a "discussion" at all. Instead it is merely a bunch of dittoheads all nodding in unison to the same fallacies.

For the record here is the dictionary definition of the term discussion.

Discussion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

discussion
noun dis·cus·sion \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

: a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something

Full Definition of DISCUSSION
1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Examples of DISCUSSION​

1. 1. The class was involved in a heated discussion about politics.
   2. I hope to have a discussion with them about the matter soon.
   3. After much discussion of the plan, the idea was rejected entirely.
   4. During the period under discussion, the town grew in size.
   5. The smoking ban is a major topic of discussion these days.
   6. The article is an in-depth discussion of his theories.
   7. The first chapter includes a discussion of childcare issues.

For the record I was accused of "spamming" by an OP in the SDZ for providing links like the one above that clarify any misunderstanding as to definitions of terms being used by the OP in those threads.

Go figure!

 

[Foxfyre]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Well that too. I don't suppose it occurred to some that if the thread topic is not of interest to them, or they find the rules onerous or stupid, that there are hundreds and hundreds of other threads to go play in? No. Let's destroy the entire forum lest somebody post a rule they don't like. It's dumb.

 

[Foxfyre]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

Equally so is excluding the intentions and motivations behind the topic of the "discussion".

And most unrealistic of all is demanding that the OP be excluded from any legitimate criticism.

So a "discussion" based on a falsehood that no one is allowed to expose or legitimately criticize is not a "discussion" at all. Instead it is merely a bunch of dittoheads all nodding in unison to the same fallacies.

For the record here is the dictionary definition of the term discussion.

Discussion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

discussion
noun dis·cus·sion \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

: a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something

Full Definition of DISCUSSION
1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Examples of DISCUSSION​

1. 1. The class was involved in a heated discussion about politics.
   2. I hope to have a discussion with them about the matter soon.
   3. After much discussion of the plan, the idea was rejected entirely.
   4. During the period under discussion, the town grew in size.
   5. The smoking ban is a major topic of discussion these days.
   6. The article is an in-depth discussion of his theories.
   7. The first chapter includes a discussion of childcare issues.

For the record I was accused of "spamming" by an OP in the SDZ for providing links like the one above that clarify any misunderstanding as to definitions of terms being used by the OP in those threads.

Go figure!

The CDZ was intended to be a forum where the thread author could direct and have some control over the discussion. There is absolutely no rule that you or anybody else has to go into the forum, open any thread, or participate in any way. If you don't like the topic or the rules for the thread or the way the thread is being handled, then simply do something else. This is not rocket science. The CDZ was not designed for you to dictate how it has to be done any more than it was designed for me to dictate how it has to be done. You should know by now how I participate on a message board. You have made it perfectly clear that I am unacceptable in every way. That's fine. I understand that. All you have to do to avoid being offended by me and my posting style is to not participate in my threads. Start your own threads and set them up as you think it should be done. Simple. Problem solved.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

Equally so is excluding the intentions and motivations behind the topic of the "discussion".

And most unrealistic of all is demanding that the OP be excluded from any legitimate criticism.

So a "discussion" based on a falsehood that no one is allowed to expose or legitimately criticize is not a "discussion" at all. Instead it is merely a bunch of dittoheads all nodding in unison to the same fallacies.

For the record here is the dictionary definition of the term discussion.

Discussion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

discussion
noun dis·cus·sion \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

: a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something

Full Definition of DISCUSSION
1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Examples of DISCUSSION​

1. 1. The class was involved in a heated discussion about politics.
   2. I hope to have a discussion with them about the matter soon.
   3. After much discussion of the plan, the idea was rejected entirely.
   4. During the period under discussion, the town grew in size.
   5. The smoking ban is a major topic of discussion these days.
   6. The article is an in-depth discussion of his theories.
   7. The first chapter includes a discussion of childcare issues.

For the record I was accused of "spamming" by an OP in the SDZ for providing links like the one above that clarify any misunderstanding as to definitions of terms being used by the OP in those threads.

Go figure!

The CDZ was intended to be a forum where the thread author could direct and have some control over the discussion. There is absolutely no rule that you or anybody else has to go into the forum, open any thread, or participate in any way. If you don't like the topic or the rules for the thread or the way the thread is being handled, then simply do something else. This is not rocket science. The CDZ was not designed for you to dictate how it has to be done any more than it was designed for me to dictate how it has to be done. You should know by now how I participate on a message board. You have made it perfectly clear that I am unacceptable in every way. That's fine. I understand that. All you have to do to avoid being offended by me and my posting style is to not participate in my threads. Start your own threads and set them up as you think it should be done. Simple. Problem solved.

For starters your "posting style" is well within what is acceptable in the SDZ and I don't recall ever posting any criticism of how you post. What matters is what is factual and provable and what is false and hearsay. That relates to content rather than style and that is entirely different to how one posts. Everyone has their own style and it reflects their personality.

Unlike you I don't take legitimate criticism personally. I accept when I am wrong, apologize and move on. Furthermore I not "offended" by you and it is fallacious to claim that I find you "unacceptable in every way" since I have never made any such statement.

At worst you appear to be misguided and misinformed IMO. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy participating in your threads. Yes, you do get upset with me when I correct what you have posted and you make snarky remarks that are outside your own OP bounds but that is all just part of the fun.

Let's face it, if we all agreed with one another this place would be boring and we would rather go outside and watch the grass grow. Instead we get to spar with each other and try to make our points and positions clear. We might be on opposite sides of the political aisle but that doesn't make either of us "bad people".

One more thing. Let's cut out the attempts to "censor" who can post what and where. I have no more control over what you post and where you post than you have over me and what and where I post. If we end up butting heads then sobeit. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I have no animosity towards you personally. In fact I have no animosity towards anyone here at USMB. I come here because I enjoy the interactions and that is all there is to it.

Peace
DT

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If someone started a debate with that structure, I would pass on by and not abuse My time by trying to force My own rules into the thread.

And that's the simple solution isn't it? If you don't like the rules established for a Structured Debate, then just don't participate in that thread. It really negates the whole concept of a structured debate if the critics can dictate to the thread author how the rules must be specified. You don't like the rules? Then don't participate. It really is that simple.

What I appreciate about the threads I've read so far in this forum is that they demonstrate people are thinking. They are spending time structuring up a case and putting it out that way.

This is actually very promising.

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

I don't have the experience that you have.

However, in reading the first page of threads in the CDZ...I see little in the way of what I call "debate".

That is my somewhat limited perspective.

That is why the forum was called Structured DISCUSSION Zone.

You really can't have true debate in this format--it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and is even less aesthetically satisfying.

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

But every now and then I run across people who really can and will actually have an intelligent discussion about something and are able to disagree without being disagreeable. And then it can really be fun. That was the goal of the CDZ. Hasn't worked out too well, but oh well. Again, it was a good idea.

This forum title is:

Debate Now: Structured Discussion Zone

I am sorry to inform you that from my perspective it is misleading to start a forum with the words Debate Now: if you don't expect to debate.

The term structured discussion zone following those two words appears on it's surface to invite debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that's the simple solution isn't it? If you don't like the rules established for a Structured Debate, then just don't participate in that thread. It really negates the whole concept of a structured debate if the critics can dictate to the thread author how the rules must be specified. You don't like the rules? Then don't participate. It really is that simple.

What I appreciate about the threads I've read so far in this forum is that they demonstrate people are thinking. They are spending time structuring up a case and putting it out that way.

This is actually very promising.

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

I don't have the experience that you have.

However, in reading the first page of threads in the CDZ...I see little in the way of what I call "debate".

That is my somewhat limited perspective.

That is why the forum was called Structured DISCUSSION Zone.

You really can't have true debate in this format--it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and is even less aesthetically satisfying.

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

But every now and then I run across people who really can and will actually have an intelligent discussion about something and are able to disagree without being disagreeable. And then it can really be fun. That was the goal of the CDZ. Hasn't worked out too well, but oh well. Again, it was a good idea.

This forum title is:

Debate Now: Structured Discussion Zone

I am sorry to inform you that from my perspective it is misleading to start a forum with the words Debate Now: if you don't expect to debate.

The term structured discussion zone following those two words appears on it's surface to invite debate.

I understand. I just don't put much technical importance on titles or the use of terms for expediency.

The Debate Now is intended as a tag to alert members that they are entering that particular forum and the rules specific to that forum will apply. The thread author can put that tag on his/her threads for the same reason and I always do.

The title of the forum is "Structured Discussion Zone." and within the broader Zone 2 rules that apply to all threads, the thread author can then create whatever sort of discussion or debate he/she wants the thread to be. So if you want debate then set your rules accordingly. I prefer civil discussion of the pros and cons of a topic and don't necessarily have in mind a purpose of proving or disproving a hypothesis. It is the exercise of exploring all facets of it and the educational aspect that I most enjoy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What I appreciate about the threads I've read so far in this forum is that they demonstrate people are thinking. They are spending time structuring up a case and putting it out that way.

This is actually very promising.

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

I don't have the experience that you have.

However, in reading the first page of threads in the CDZ...I see little in the way of what I call "debate".

That is my somewhat limited perspective.

That is why the forum was called Structured DISCUSSION Zone.

You really can't have true debate in this format--it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and is even less aesthetically satisfying.

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

But every now and then I run across people who really can and will actually have an intelligent discussion about something and are able to disagree without being disagreeable. And then it can really be fun. That was the goal of the CDZ. Hasn't worked out too well, but oh well. Again, it was a good idea.

This forum title is:

Debate Now: Structured Discussion Zone

I am sorry to inform you that from my perspective it is misleading to start a forum with the words Debate Now: if you don't expect to debate.

The term structured discussion zone following those two words appears on it's surface to invite debate.

I understand. I just don't put much technical importance on titles or the use of terms for expediency.

The Debate Now is intended as a tag to alert members that they are entering that particular forum and the rules specific to that forum will apply. The thread author can put that tag on his/her threads for the same reason and I always do.

The title of the forum is "Structured Discussion Zone." and within the broader Zone 2 rules that apply to all threads, the thread author can then create whatever sort of discussion or debate he/she wants the thread to be. So if you want debate then set your rules accordingly. I prefer civil discussion of the pros and cons of a topic and don't necessarily have in mind a purpose of proving or disproving a hypothesis. It is the exercise of exploring all facets of it and the educational aspect that I most enjoy.

I still contend that the forum title is misleading.

Maybe the board needs a "Fact Only Zone" meaning posts all have to do with information (i.e. reported facts) and analysis of reported facts. Commentary with no support would be removed. It would streamline threads so that others reading them could actually follow....get some education...and not be bogged down by the piddle that some post.

 

[Foxfyre]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

Equally so is excluding the intentions and motivations behind the topic of the "discussion".

And most unrealistic of all is demanding that the OP be excluded from any legitimate criticism.

So a "discussion" based on a falsehood that no one is allowed to expose or legitimately criticize is not a "discussion" at all. Instead it is merely a bunch of dittoheads all nodding in unison to the same fallacies.

For the record here is the dictionary definition of the term discussion.

Discussion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

discussion
noun dis·cus·sion \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

: a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something

Full Definition of DISCUSSION
1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Examples of DISCUSSION​

1. 1. The class was involved in a heated discussion about politics.
   2. I hope to have a discussion with them about the matter soon.
   3. After much discussion of the plan, the idea was rejected entirely.
   4. During the period under discussion, the town grew in size.
   5. The smoking ban is a major topic of discussion these days.
   6. The article is an in-depth discussion of his theories.
   7. The first chapter includes a discussion of childcare issues.

For the record I was accused of "spamming" by an OP in the SDZ for providing links like the one above that clarify any misunderstanding as to definitions of terms being used by the OP in those threads.

Go figure!

The CDZ was intended to be a forum where the thread author could direct and have some control over the discussion. There is absolutely no rule that you or anybody else has to go into the forum, open any thread, or participate in any way. If you don't like the topic or the rules for the thread or the way the thread is being handled, then simply do something else. This is not rocket science. The CDZ was not designed for you to dictate how it has to be done any more than it was designed for me to dictate how it has to be done. You should know by now how I participate on a message board. You have made it perfectly clear that I am unacceptable in every way. That's fine. I understand that. All you have to do to avoid being offended by me and my posting style is to not participate in my threads. Start your own threads and set them up as you think it should be done. Simple. Problem solved.

For starters your "posting style" is well within what is acceptable in the SDZ and I don't recall ever posting any criticism of how you post. What matters is what is factual and provable and what is false and hearsay. That relates to content rather than style and that is entirely different to how one posts. Everyone has their own style and it reflects their personality.

Unlike you I don't take legitimate criticism personally. I accept when I am wrong, apologize and move on. Furthermore I not "offended" by you and it is fallacious to claim that I find you "unacceptable in every way" since I have never made any such statement.

At worst you appear to be misguided and misinformed IMO. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy participating in your threads. Yes, you do get upset with me when I correct what you have posted and you make snarky remarks that are outside your own OP bounds but that is all just part of the fun.

Let's face it, if we all agreed with one another this place would be boring and we would rather go outside and watch the grass grow. Instead we get to spar with each other and try to make our points and positions clear. We might be on opposite sides of the political aisle but that doesn't make either of us "bad people".

One more thing. Let's cut out the attempts to "censor" who can post what and where. I have no more control over what you post and where you post than you have over me and what and where I post. If we end up butting heads then sobeit. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I have no animosity towards you personally. In fact I have no animosity towards anyone here at USMB. I come here because I enjoy the interactions and that is all there is to it.

Peace
DT

Oh sure, bringing up again and again your belief that I accused you of spamming--(I didn't)--is proof positive that you don't take criticism personally. As is your frequent objections to the rules I post or the definitions I use, and uncomplimentary characterizations of me if I don't accept your point of view. Including your repeated assertions that I can't take personal criticism. Well, in my thread that disallows personal criticism, I don't allow that toward me or anybody else. So you'll have to believe whatever you believe when I object to it.

I'll let the rest of your post be judged as to whether my perspective is all off base. I can tell you that a number of members have asked me what happened to tick you off and have you gunning for me, so I am pretty secure that I haven't been reading or interpreting that wrong.

I will continue to suggest those who don't like me, who don't like my topics, who don't like my rules, etc. just find somebody else's thread to play in or start your own more to your own liking. We'll all be much happier I'm sure.

Peace.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's pretty much the whole intention of what the CDZ was supposed to be. But there are some who resent it just the same.

I don't have the experience that you have.

However, in reading the first page of threads in the CDZ...I see little in the way of what I call "debate".

That is my somewhat limited perspective.

That is why the forum was called Structured DISCUSSION Zone.

You really can't have true debate in this format--it is about as interesting as watching paint dry and is even less aesthetically satisfying.

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

But every now and then I run across people who really can and will actually have an intelligent discussion about something and are able to disagree without being disagreeable. And then it can really be fun. That was the goal of the CDZ. Hasn't worked out too well, but oh well. Again, it was a good idea.

This forum title is:

Debate Now: Structured Discussion Zone

I am sorry to inform you that from my perspective it is misleading to start a forum with the words Debate Now: if you don't expect to debate.

The term structured discussion zone following those two words appears on it's surface to invite debate.

I understand. I just don't put much technical importance on titles or the use of terms for expediency.

The Debate Now is intended as a tag to alert members that they are entering that particular forum and the rules specific to that forum will apply. The thread author can put that tag on his/her threads for the same reason and I always do.

The title of the forum is "Structured Discussion Zone." and within the broader Zone 2 rules that apply to all threads, the thread author can then create whatever sort of discussion or debate he/she wants the thread to be. So if you want debate then set your rules accordingly. I prefer civil discussion of the pros and cons of a topic and don't necessarily have in mind a purpose of proving or disproving a hypothesis. It is the exercise of exploring all facets of it and the educational aspect that I most enjoy.

I still contend that the forum title is misleading.

Maybe the board needs a "Fact Only Zone" meaning posts all have to do with information (i.e. reported facts) and analysis of reported facts. Commentary with no support would be removed. It would streamline threads so that others reading them could actually follow....get some education...and not be bogged down by the piddle that some post.

But you see, that the beauty of the CDZ. You can create your own thread and make one of the rules "fact's only" however you define that.

A standard rule I order for all my threads is no ad hominem or personal insults--focus on the member's post and not on the member who made it. And I extend that no ad hominem rule to sociopolitical groups or personalities referenced. Cuts down on the derails and food fights.

I also usually specify that members do not have to post a link in order to express their opinion. I personally find endless cuts and pastes--especially big huge blocks of it--and/or constant links to other people's opinion boring and usually not useful. I am more interested in what the people in the thread think than I am interested in what some pundit or some site with an agenda is pushing. So if they do post a link, and sometimes that is helpful to do for illustration, I ask them to summarize, in their own words, what we'll see or learn if we click on it. This is an effort to encourage people to articulate their opinions instead of thinking posting other people's opinion is good debate or intelligent discussion. It doesn't prevent somebody from posting a short excerpt or link that reinforces their argument.

The closest thing to debate that I shoot for is that I don't want members to have to constantly be proving or supporting their opinions or statements of fact. If somebody disagrees, they should simply say so, and, if helpful or appropriate, can provide their own ammunition for how the other guy is wrong. Having to refute a member's argument instead of demanding the member 'prove it' is perhaps the most alien concept introduced here at USMB and the one concept most similar to formal debate.