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

[Statistikhengst]

I suppose I need to remove the sign on the SDF that stipulates that all members MUST participate in this forum whether they like it or not. I knew that would cause a problem.

New rule folks. If you don't like structured debate and feel its censorship you no longer have to use this forum. We'll begin creating a ton of other forums such as Politics, Current Events etc to keep everyone happy.

We will be adding many other forum sections as we go along. We haven't decided if we are going to implement a guideline that stipulates members must participate in every section we create. The "Don't like gardening? Too bad!! You must post in here!!" guideline does have a certain appeal to it. We'll keep you posted....

OMG, who put the brilcreme in yer wheaties, dude?

I don't eat Wheaties, they're bad for you.

Wheaties are teh awesome!
Look what they did for Bruce Jenner!!

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a thread in which the rules create a place where people can discuss what they like or don't like about the candidates, one of which they will choose to vote for. . .and. . .

A thread created to invite mocking, ridiculing, and being disrespectful to that same group.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

But I am considering adding a rule to my threads that if you don't like the topic or the thread or the way I write my OP, you cannot mention it. It would certainly help me keep some of my threads on topic. The trouble is that C_K, of necessity, limited us to three rules and I need some to prevent other means some use to derail discussions.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a thread in which the rules create a place where people can discuss what they like or don't like about the candidates, one of which they will choose to vote for. . .and. . .

A thread created to invite mocking, ridiculing, and being disrespectful to that same group.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

But I am considering adding a rule to my threads that if you don't like the topic or the thread or the way I write my OP, you cannot mention it. It would certainly help me keep some of my threads on topic. The trouble is that C_K, of necessity, limited us to three rules and I need some to prevent other means some use to derail discussions.

Well, I am delighted to hear that, for then certainly you will agree that this thread invites mocking and ridicule, what?

Example #1

Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion Conservative libertarian tea party only US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a thread in which the rules create a place where people can discuss what they like or don't like about the candidates, one of which they will choose to vote for. . .and. . .

A thread created to invite mocking, ridiculing, and being disrespectful to that same group.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

But I am considering adding a rule to my threads that if you don't like the topic or the thread or the way I write my OP, you cannot mention it. It would certainly help me keep some of my threads on topic. The trouble is that C_K, of necessity, limited us to three rules and I need some to prevent other means some use to derail discussions.

Well, I am delighted to hear that, for then certainly you will agree that this thread invites mocking and ridicule, what?

Example #1

Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion Conservative libertarian tea party only US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....

Certainly did not invite mocking and ridicule by me. Or anybody else that I can see. The only folks who seem to have their shorts in a wad are those the rules prohibit from mocking and ridiculing in that thread.

Did I mention that I love the SDZ because it DOES allow us some control over the ridiculers and mockers and sometime actually allows for a productive discussion? Of course those who appreciate that have to put up with a lot more hateful threads in the Flame Zone and other forms of protest, but oh well. A small price to pay.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a thread in which the rules create a place where people can discuss what they like or don't like about the candidates, one of which they will choose to vote for. . .and. . .

A thread created to invite mocking, ridiculing, and being disrespectful to that same group.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

But I am considering adding a rule to my threads that if you don't like the topic or the thread or the way I write my OP, you cannot mention it. It would certainly help me keep some of my threads on topic. The trouble is that C_K, of necessity, limited us to three rules and I need some to prevent other means some use to derail discussions.

Well, I am delighted to hear that, for then certainly you will agree that this thread invites mocking and ridicule, what?

Example #1

Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion Conservative libertarian tea party only US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....

Certainly did not invite mocking and ridicule by me. Or anybody else that I can see. The only folks who seem to have their shorts in a wad are those the rules prohibit from mocking and ridiculing in that thread.

Did I mention that I love the SDZ because it DOES allow us some control over the ridiculers and mockers and sometime actually allows for a productive discussion? Of course those who appreciate that have to put up with a lot more hateful threads in the Flame Zone and other forms of protest, but oh well. A small price to pay.

Uhuh, but this thead:
Example #2

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Special GOP Clown Avatar Thread

This is a thread for people to comment on the greatness of GOP clown avatars. The question for debate is:

Are GOP clown avatars better than sliced bread?

Rules for this thread:

1) Only people who enjoy the clown avatars may participate. If your feelings are hurt by GOP clown avatars, please refrain from whining here.

2) Every response must include the words "GOP clowns" and "sliced bread".

3) No clowning around is permitted.

Debate............NOW!!


--------------------------------------


somehow invited mocking?

hmmmmmm.... interesting.

 

[cereal_killer]

Disregard

 

[Statistikhengst]

rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?

Dear Mr. Cereal Killer,

pursuant to this statement: "rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?"

On behalf of the Hujukubah High Command, I am authorized to give the following response:

"Whutt??"

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a thread in which the rules create a place where people can discuss what they like or don't like about the candidates, one of which they will choose to vote for. . .and. . .

A thread created to invite mocking, ridiculing, and being disrespectful to that same group.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

But I am considering adding a rule to my threads that if you don't like the topic or the thread or the way I write my OP, you cannot mention it. It would certainly help me keep some of my threads on topic. The trouble is that C_K, of necessity, limited us to three rules and I need some to prevent other means some use to derail discussions.

Well, I am delighted to hear that, for then certainly you will agree that this thread invites mocking and ridicule, what?

Example #1

Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion Conservative libertarian tea party only US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....

Certainly did not invite mocking and ridicule by me. Or anybody else that I can see. The only folks who seem to have their shorts in a wad are those the rules prohibit from mocking and ridiculing in that thread.

Did I mention that I love the SDZ because it DOES allow us some control over the ridiculers and mockers and sometime actually allows for a productive discussion? Of course those who appreciate that have to put up with a lot more hateful threads in the Flame Zone and other forms of protest, but oh well. A small price to pay.

Uhuh, but this thead:
Example #2

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Special GOP Clown Avatar Thread

This is a thread for people to comment on the greatness of GOP clown avatars. The question for debate is:

Are GOP clown avatars better than sliced bread?

Rules for this thread:

1) Only people who enjoy the clown avatars may participate. If your feelings are hurt by GOP clown avatars, please refrain from whining here.

2) Every response must include the words "GOP clowns" and "sliced bread".

3) No clowning around is permitted.

Debate............NOW!!


--------------------------------------


somehow invited mocking?

hmmmmmm.... interesting.

I wouldn't have moved the thread myself. But I could change my mind about that if I was privy to the administrative reason for doing so. I do think the SDZ was intended to promote a better quality of discussion but don't know that such is specifically a rule.

 

[cereal_killer]

Stat your comparing that RR thread that was placed in the SDF for the sole purpose of trolling to some of the more viable threads that exist in here? Come on man, say it isn't so. Don't let your party affiliation cloud your judgement.

 

[cereal_killer]

rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?

Dear Mr. Cereal Killer,

pursuant to this statement: "rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?"

On behalf of the Hujukubah High Command, I am authorized to give the following response:

"Whutt??"

That was in response to Foxy 's rules. I edited it out because I didn't want this to happen

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat your comparing that RR thread that was placed in the SDF for the sole purpose of trolling to some of the more viable threads that exist in here? Come on man, say it isn't so. Don't let your party affiliation cloud your judgement.

Wait, it isn't here for trolling, it is here for fun.

There is indeed a difference.

 

[Statistikhengst]

rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?

Dear Mr. Cereal Killer,

pursuant to this statement: "rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?"

On behalf of the Hujukubah High Command, I am authorized to give the following response:

"Whutt??"

That was in response to Foxy 's rules. I edited it out because I didn't want this to happen

But admit it, you liked the form letter.

 

[cereal_killer]

Stat your comparing that RR thread that was placed in the SDF for the sole purpose of trolling to some of the more viable threads that exist in here? Come on man, say it isn't so. Don't let your party affiliation cloud your judgement.

Wait, it isn't here for trolling, it is here for fun.

There is indeed a difference.

Its a debate forum first and foremost

 

[Foxfyre]

rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?

Dear Mr. Cereal Killer,

pursuant to this statement: "rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?"

On behalf of the Hujukubah High Command, I am authorized to give the following response:

"Whutt??"

That was in response to Foxy 's rules. I edited it out because I didn't want this to happen

Except they weren't Foxy's rules. The thread they are complaining about isn't my thread. I try not to have redundant rules.

 

[HUGGY]

Having participated in a number of these beta threads it is becoming apparent that there was an ulterior motive behind giving the OP the right to dictate arbitrary and unreasonable "rules".

I am specifically referring to post #6 in the Guidelines thread. The author of that post wants to have the right to censor valid criticism under the transparent guise of dictating arbitrary definitions and have the mods act as enforcers.

That fits the definition of censorship IMO.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

You are free to disregard threads you find offensive.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat your comparing that RR thread that was placed in the SDF for the sole purpose of trolling to some of the more viable threads that exist in here? Come on man, say it isn't so. Don't let your party affiliation cloud your judgement.

Wait, it isn't here for trolling, it is here for fun.

There is indeed a difference.

Its a debate forum first and foremost

Uhuh..... well, ok....

 

[LoneLaugher]

The best thing about this discussion is the illusion that there are high quality debates taking place in the "Structured Debate Forum".

The thread I mocked, for example, wasn't a debate thread. It was a thread asking conservatives to tell other conservatives what they like about conservative presidential candidates. Not a debate. No debate question offered.

In other words....it was bullshit.

Somebody whined about some members having a little laugh. And that someone got what he or she wanted. Let's not pretend like there is something of value going on here that needs to be protected.

 

[cereal_killer]

rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?

Dear Mr. Cereal Killer,

pursuant to this statement: "rules 2 and 3 are redundant..no?"

On behalf of the Hujukubah High Command, I am authorized to give the following response:

"Whutt??"

That was in response to Foxy 's rules. I edited it out because I didn't want this to happen

Except they weren't Foxy's rules. The thread they are complaining about isn't my thread. I try not to have redundant rules.

I stand corrected. Posting from phone so I assumed. You know what they say about assuming

 

[cereal_killer]

LL I moved your thread to the RR. It wasn't reported. I also disagree. There has been some EXCELLENT high quality debates going on. All of them? Course not, but a majority of them are excellent. I'm pleased at what I've seen so far.

 

[Dot Com]

Having participated in a number of these beta threads it is becoming apparent that there was an ulterior motive behind giving the OP the right to dictate arbitrary and unreasonable "rules".

I am specifically referring to post #6 in the Guidelines thread. The author of that post wants to have the right to censor valid criticism under the transparent guise of dictating arbitrary definitions and have the mods act as enforcers.

That fits the definition of censorship IMO.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

yes. People, like Foxfyre for instance, are starting rw hack threads under the protection of the structured forums rules to protect their thinly veiled rw propoganda. cereal_killer Promoting secession & attacking healthcare reform are but two propoganda threads she has going.

Why do I get the feeling that she was instrumental in getting this sub-forum up & running as well?