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

[LoneLaugher]

What for? To have it moved immediately to the Flame Zone....might as well just start them in the Flame Zone.

Mertex it wont be moved. However, If the OP is trying to make a mockery of a group/members/policies etc then it will be removed.

Those types of threads violate the spirit of this forum.

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

One thread limited to a particular purpose makes a mockery of USMB? How does that possibly hurt you? How does the SDZ possibly hurt anybody? Interfere with anybody's rights?

My gosh I have never seen so much butt hurt just because members cannot as easily insult, derail, drive by post, or otherwise disrupt a discussion they disagree with. Everybody has a whole big board out there to start as many threads as they want ranting and raving about whatever to their hearts' content and make sure no intelligent discussion happens about any subject. The world won't come to an end because you have less ability to do that in one designated forum.

I have much appreciated the SDZ just because we have some control over those devote most of their efforts at USMB to destroying threads. If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be, I will agree to just bow out of the SDZ and restrict my posting to the Coffee Shop. Will that make you all happy? Can we then have some sort of live and let live existence here?

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

If only you could teach us how to have a calm discussion. How do you do it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Feel free to start your own leftwing 'hack' threads in the SDZ, Dottie. And balance it out.

What for? To have it moved immediately to the Flame Zone....might as well just start them in the Flame Zone.

Mertex it wont be moved. However, If the OP is trying to make a mockery of a group/members/policies etc then it will be removed.

Those types of threads violate the spirit of this forum.

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

Totally agree (bolded) Mertex and I'm not going to disagree with that. However, you are missing the point. If a member wants to exclude a group or groups thats their prerogative. The thread will either die or flourish based on the participants or lack thereof. Who cares? If you want to start a thread that excludes males from debating womens issues I'm not going to stomp my feet and complain. You may have your reasons for this and while I may disagree with what you are doing it's no longer my business. Your thread doesn't affect my life.

Keep in mind, EVERYONE is welcome to start their own SDF thread and bring in, exclude whoever they'd like. Again starting an SDF thread and excluding groups/members etc simply to mock policies/members/issues is NOT why this forum was started. Thats childish and we'll simply close or move it to the FZ or RR.

Structured Debate is whatever YOU want to make of it. Male/Female only debate thread, over/under 60 only thread, Repub/Democrat only, everyone and anyone, etc its a completely blank canvas. Sometimes a member may just want to debate/discuss something without "another group" chiming in. Who are we to say "You can't do that" ? Because we don't like it, then they can't do that? I may not like that you want to create that thread with women only, should I complain and make a rule against it? Not a chance.

This is your forum and you can use it how you see fit. Thats the way it should be.

Thank you for clarifying your position but you failed to answer the most pertinent question of all, cereal_killer.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?​

If I go and post in the thread where clown avis' are excluded what penalty will I incur?

If there is no penalty then the OP Rule is meaningless, right?

If there is a penalty then are the mods going to have to spend all of their time "cleaning up" SDH threads simply because FF is whining that DT was "mean" to FF because he quoted her OP word for word yet again?

What exactly is the penalty for an "OP Rule" violation?

 

[Dot Com]

Feel free to start your own leftwing 'hack' threads in the SDZ, Dottie. And balance it out.

You miss the point. You are pretending to be above the fray.......you shouldn't be focused on starting threads and then "straining" the discussion so that you can maintain control and massage your humongous yet fragile ego. You shouldn't be inviting people to start hack threads in your pet forum, should you? Balance what out? Was that an admission that you have started hack threads?

You may now resume your pretense.

My point was that Dotcom was whining about all the 'hack' threads in the SDZ. I was just encouraging him to start his own more to his own liking.

whining? I was pointing-out your highly-partisan threads using brazenly hack sources then you discounting anyone who disagreed w/ your premise based on said hack sources.

You basically have a crazie soapbox which is protected in this sub-forum. 'Orwellian' is the word that comes to mind

 

[Foxfyre]

The point is, if you think a thread is ridiculous, simply don't post in it. If you don't agree with the OP and think it is worthless or there is no point in rebutting it, simply don't post in it. If you don't like the thread rules then simply don't post in the thread. If you think the OP is pushing a particular agenda that you disagree with, what is that to you? Either join the discussion as the loyal opposition or start your own thread and word the OP however you think it should be.

Nobody requires you to post anywhere, let alone in a thread you don't like. But what profit is it to anybody to try to prevent others from enjoying a discussion in a way that they choose to enjoy it just because you don't like it?

 

[cereal_killer]

What for? To have it moved immediately to the Flame Zone....might as well just start them in the Flame Zone.

Mertex it wont be moved. However, If the OP is trying to make a mockery of a group/members/policies etc then it will be removed.

Those types of threads violate the spirit of this forum.

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

Totally agree (bolded) Mertex and I'm not going to disagree with that. However, you are missing the point. If a member wants to exclude a group or groups thats their prerogative. The thread will either die or flourish based on the participants or lack thereof. Who cares? If you want to start a thread that excludes males from debating womens issues I'm not going to stomp my feet and complain. You may have your reasons for this and while I may disagree with what you are doing it's no longer my business. Your thread doesn't affect my life.

Keep in mind, EVERYONE is welcome to start their own SDF thread and bring in, exclude whoever they'd like. Again starting an SDF thread and excluding groups/members etc simply to mock policies/members/issues is NOT why this forum was started. Thats childish and we'll simply close or move it to the FZ or RR.

Structured Debate is whatever YOU want to make of it. Male/Female only debate thread, over/under 60 only thread, Repub/Democrat only, everyone and anyone, etc its a completely blank canvas. Sometimes a member may just want to debate/discuss something without "another group" chiming in. Who are we to say "You can't do that" ? Because we don't like it, then they can't do that? I may not like that you want to create that thread with women only, should I complain and make a rule against it? Not a chance.

This is your forum and you can use it how you see fit. Thats the way it should be.

Thank you for clarifying your position but you failed to answer the most pertinent question of all, cereal_killer.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?​

If I go and post in the thread where clown avis' are excluded what penalty will I incur?

If there is no penalty then the OP Rule is meaningless, right?

If there is a penalty then are the mods going to have to spend all of their time "cleaning up" SDH threads simply because FF is whining that DT was "mean" to FF because he quoted her OP word for word yet again?

What exactly is the penalty for an "OP Rule" violation?

We'd come in, delete the post and ask you to please respect the OP's rules. Now if you ignore the warning and continue we'll just remove your posting privileges in the forum (the SDF that is)

We're not looking to ban people off the site, we're just asking that people please respect the guidelines in there or be removed from the section. Just like the CDZ.

 

[Dot Com]

Feel free to start your own leftwing 'hack' threads in the SDZ, Dottie. And balance it out.

so combat your rw propoganda w/ more propoganda? ummm..... no thanks. I'd rather just not have your propoganda protected under the guise of "structured debate"

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be

We have had this out before already. No, it isn't you as a person at all. I have no animosity towards you at all. Never have had and probably never will have either.

I only take issue with your Libertarian leanings. My criticism of them is entirely legitimate and if you cannot defend them that is not my problem.

If you have to resort to making up ever more convoluted "OP Rules" in order to protect them what does that tell you about your Libertarian beliefs?

Oh, and you are not the only Libertarian who has to deal with my legitimate criticism of your beliefs. Neither am I the only poster here who criticizes Libertarianism.

So let's drop the "Oh woe is me" act and behave like adults instead, m'kay?

You post your imaginary Libertarian Uptopia and I, and others, will point out how it is will fail in real life. That is what passes for "structured discussion" in this forum.

Peace
DT

 

[Derideo_Te]

Mertex it wont be moved. However, If the OP is trying to make a mockery of a group/members/policies etc then it will be removed.

Those types of threads violate the spirit of this forum.

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

Totally agree (bolded) Mertex and I'm not going to disagree with that. However, you are missing the point. If a member wants to exclude a group or groups thats their prerogative. The thread will either die or flourish based on the participants or lack thereof. Who cares? If you want to start a thread that excludes males from debating womens issues I'm not going to stomp my feet and complain. You may have your reasons for this and while I may disagree with what you are doing it's no longer my business. Your thread doesn't affect my life.

Keep in mind, EVERYONE is welcome to start their own SDF thread and bring in, exclude whoever they'd like. Again starting an SDF thread and excluding groups/members etc simply to mock policies/members/issues is NOT why this forum was started. Thats childish and we'll simply close or move it to the FZ or RR.

Structured Debate is whatever YOU want to make of it. Male/Female only debate thread, over/under 60 only thread, Repub/Democrat only, everyone and anyone, etc its a completely blank canvas. Sometimes a member may just want to debate/discuss something without "another group" chiming in. Who are we to say "You can't do that" ? Because we don't like it, then they can't do that? I may not like that you want to create that thread with women only, should I complain and make a rule against it? Not a chance.

This is your forum and you can use it how you see fit. Thats the way it should be.

Thank you for clarifying your position but you failed to answer the most pertinent question of all, cereal_killer.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?​

If I go and post in the thread where clown avis' are excluded what penalty will I incur?

If there is no penalty then the OP Rule is meaningless, right?

If there is a penalty then are the mods going to have to spend all of their time "cleaning up" SDH threads simply because FF is whining that DT was "mean" to FF because he quoted her OP word for word yet again?

What exactly is the penalty for an "OP Rule" violation?

We'd come in, delete the post and ask you to please respect the OP's rules. Now if you ignore the warning and continue we'll just remove your posting privileges in the forum (the SDF that is)

We're not looking to ban people off the site, we're just asking that people please respect the guidelines in there or be removed from the section. Just like the CDZ.

Thank you

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you think the OP is pushing a particular agenda that you disagree with, what is that to you? Either join the discussion as the loyal opposition

Except when the OP deliberate excludes the "loyal opposition" because that upsets her when they "join the discussion" and expose the "particular agenda" as being a fallacy?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What for? To have it moved immediately to the Flame Zone....might as well just start them in the Flame Zone.

Mertex it wont be moved. However, If the OP is trying to make a mockery of a group/members/policies etc then it will be removed.

Those types of threads violate the spirit of this forum.

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

One thread limited to a particular purpose makes a mockery of USMB? How does that possibly hurt you? How does the SDZ possibly hurt anybody? Interfere with anybody's rights?

My gosh I have never seen so much butt hurt just because members cannot as easily insult, derail, drive by post, or otherwise disrupt a discussion they disagree with. Everybody has a whole big board out there to start as many threads as they want ranting and raving about whatever to their hearts' content and make sure no intelligent discussion happens about any subject. The world won't come to an end because you have less ability to do that in one designated forum.

I have much appreciated the SDZ just because we have some control over those devote most of their efforts at USMB to destroying threads. If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be, I will agree to just bow out of the SDZ and restrict my posting to the Coffee Shop. Will that make you all happy? Can we then have some sort of live and let live existence here?

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

Care to explain how quoting the exact words of the OP and asking straightforward questions constitutes "destroying the thread so no one can have a discussion"?

And yes, I was reported by FF for doing exactly that.

Is that what you believe constitutes a "structured discussion"? No legitimate criticism allowed?

 

[Foxfyre]

Mertex it wont be moved. However, If the OP is trying to make a mockery of a group/members/policies etc then it will be removed.

Those types of threads violate the spirit of this forum.

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

One thread limited to a particular purpose makes a mockery of USMB? How does that possibly hurt you? How does the SDZ possibly hurt anybody? Interfere with anybody's rights?

My gosh I have never seen so much butt hurt just because members cannot as easily insult, derail, drive by post, or otherwise disrupt a discussion they disagree with. Everybody has a whole big board out there to start as many threads as they want ranting and raving about whatever to their hearts' content and make sure no intelligent discussion happens about any subject. The world won't come to an end because you have less ability to do that in one designated forum.

I have much appreciated the SDZ just because we have some control over those devote most of their efforts at USMB to destroying threads. If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be, I will agree to just bow out of the SDZ and restrict my posting to the Coffee Shop. Will that make you all happy? Can we then have some sort of live and let live existence here?

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

Care to explain how quoting the exact words of the OP and asking straightforward questions constitutes "destroying the thread so no one can have a discussion"?

And yes, I was reported by FF for doing exactly that.

Is that what you believe constitutes a "structured discussion"? No legitimate criticism allowed?

I don't remember who I reported but I do give a reminder of the thread rules and if a member persists in breaking them, I do report it. I would very much like to know how you know it was me who reported though.

I welcome and encourage all points of view but everybody has to stay within the thread rules.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if the thread rules are not legitimately violated, no mod action of any kind will take place due to a report.

 

[Dot Com]

If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be

We have had this out before already. No, it isn't you as a person at all. I have no animosity towards you at all. Never have had and probably never will have either.

I only take issue with your Libertarian leanings. My criticism of them is entirely legitimate and if you cannot defend them that is not my problem.

If you have to resort to making up ever more convoluted "OP Rules" in order to protect them what does that tell you about your Libertarian beliefs?

Oh, and you are not the only Libertarian who has to deal with my legitimate criticism of your beliefs. Neither am I the only poster here who criticizes Libertarianism.

So let's drop the "Oh woe is me" act and behave like adults instead, m'kay?

You post your imaginary Libertarian Uptopia and I, and others, will point out how it is will fail in real life. That is what passes for "structured discussion" in this forum.

Peace
DT

since 75% of the threads on the 1st page of the sub-forum are penned by her, she made it about her.

Also, look at the thread topics. Most if not all have to do w/ some sort of Democrat-bashing and singing the praises of a libertarian dream world

 

[Foxfyre]

If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be

We have had this out before already. No, it isn't you as a person at all. I have no animosity towards you at all. Never have had and probably never will have either.

I only take issue with your Libertarian leanings. My criticism of them is entirely legitimate and if you cannot defend them that is not my problem.

If you have to resort to making up ever more convoluted "OP Rules" in order to protect them what does that tell you about your Libertarian beliefs?

Oh, and you are not the only Libertarian who has to deal with my legitimate criticism of your beliefs. Neither am I the only poster here who criticizes Libertarianism.

So let's drop the "Oh woe is me" act and behave like adults instead, m'kay?

You post your imaginary Libertarian Uptopia and I, and others, will point out how it is will fail in real life. That is what passes for "structured discussion" in this forum.

Peace
DT

I'm not the one bitching about the SDZ and how badly I have been treated here. If your problem isn't with me, then stop bringing up all the problems you have with me. I don't do that to you. If your problem is with me, and your friends agree--Mertex and Dottie obviously do--then I have offered to withdraw from the SDZ because I think it is a great forum and concept and I would like to see it succeed and do not want to be the reason it does not. I mostly post there because I love the concept. But apparently that isn't acceptable to the peanut gallery.

I am perfectly willing to allow anybody else to express themselves any way they choose to do that anywhere they want to do it within the rules. If they offer a subject I'm interested in, I enjoy participating. If I am not interested I don't.

Why can't that be the attitude everybody adopts about the SDZ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Did the conservatives only thread violate the "spirit" of the forum? Had I posted in that thread....would my post have been deleted?

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

One thread limited to a particular purpose makes a mockery of USMB? How does that possibly hurt you? How does the SDZ possibly hurt anybody? Interfere with anybody's rights?

My gosh I have never seen so much butt hurt just because members cannot as easily insult, derail, drive by post, or otherwise disrupt a discussion they disagree with. Everybody has a whole big board out there to start as many threads as they want ranting and raving about whatever to their hearts' content and make sure no intelligent discussion happens about any subject. The world won't come to an end because you have less ability to do that in one designated forum.

I have much appreciated the SDZ just because we have some control over those devote most of their efforts at USMB to destroying threads. If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be, I will agree to just bow out of the SDZ and restrict my posting to the Coffee Shop. Will that make you all happy? Can we then have some sort of live and let live existence here?

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

Care to explain how quoting the exact words of the OP and asking straightforward questions constitutes "destroying the thread so no one can have a discussion"?

And yes, I was reported by FF for doing exactly that.

Is that what you believe constitutes a "structured discussion"? No legitimate criticism allowed?

I don't remember who I reported but I do give a reminder of the thread rules and if a member persists in breaking them, I do report it. I would very much like to know how you know it was me who reported though.

I welcome and encourage all points of view but everybody has to stay within the thread rules.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if the thread rules are not legitimately violated, no mod action of any kind will take place due to a report.

The post was well within the thread rules and I am not going to discuss mod actions since that is a violation of the USMB rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

Given what cereal_killer said earlier that is a very legitimate question.

What exactly is the penalty for posting in a thread where the OP has created a rule excluding a group of posters?

How can there even be a "structured discussion" if the legitimate views of a group of posters are deliberately excluded?

The best debates here in the SDF have only occurred because all views were aired. Without conflict there is nothing to debate.

If someone wants a "Sycophant Soapbox" thread where only they and their mindless myrmidons can high 5 each other then that has nothing whatsoever to with "structured discussion".

So please, CK, go ahead and create a "Soapbox Forum" where those threads can be created and no dissent is ever allowed.

But let's not pretend that they belong under the heading of "structured discussion" because that just makes a mockery of USMB IMO.

One thread limited to a particular purpose makes a mockery of USMB? How does that possibly hurt you? How does the SDZ possibly hurt anybody? Interfere with anybody's rights?

My gosh I have never seen so much butt hurt just because members cannot as easily insult, derail, drive by post, or otherwise disrupt a discussion they disagree with. Everybody has a whole big board out there to start as many threads as they want ranting and raving about whatever to their hearts' content and make sure no intelligent discussion happens about any subject. The world won't come to an end because you have less ability to do that in one designated forum.

I have much appreciated the SDZ just because we have some control over those devote most of their efforts at USMB to destroying threads. If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be, I will agree to just bow out of the SDZ and restrict my posting to the Coffee Shop. Will that make you all happy? Can we then have some sort of live and let live existence here?

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

Care to explain how quoting the exact words of the OP and asking straightforward questions constitutes "destroying the thread so no one can have a discussion"?

And yes, I was reported by FF for doing exactly that.

Is that what you believe constitutes a "structured discussion"? No legitimate criticism allowed?

I don't remember who I reported but I do give a reminder of the thread rules and if a member persists in breaking them, I do report it. I would very much like to know how you know it was me who reported though.

I welcome and encourage all points of view but everybody has to stay within the thread rules.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if the thread rules are not legitimately violated, no mod action of any kind will take place due to a report.

The post was well within the thread rules and I am not going to discuss mod actions since that is a violation of the USMB rules.

Well the only way you could know who reported your post is because a mod told you. And you discussed that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be

We have had this out before already. No, it isn't you as a person at all. I have no animosity towards you at all. Never have had and probably never will have either.

I only take issue with your Libertarian leanings. My criticism of them is entirely legitimate and if you cannot defend them that is not my problem.

If you have to resort to making up ever more convoluted "OP Rules" in order to protect them what does that tell you about your Libertarian beliefs?

Oh, and you are not the only Libertarian who has to deal with my legitimate criticism of your beliefs. Neither am I the only poster here who criticizes Libertarianism.

So let's drop the "Oh woe is me" act and behave like adults instead, m'kay?

You post your imaginary Libertarian Uptopia and I, and others, will point out how it is will fail in real life. That is what passes for "structured discussion" in this forum.

Peace
DT

I'm not the one bitching about the SDZ and how badly I have been treated here. If your problem isn't with me, then stop bringing up all the problems you have with me. I don't do that to you. If your problem is with me, and your friends agree--Mertex and Dottie obviously do--then I have offered to withdraw from the SDZ because I think it is a great forum and concept and I would like to see it succeed and do not want to be the reason it does not. I mostly post there because I love the concept. But apparently that isn't acceptable to the peanut gallery.

I am perfectly willing to allow anybody else to express themselves any way they choose to do that anywhere they want to do it within the rules. If they offer a subject I'm interested in, I enjoy participating. If I am not interested I don't.

Why can't that be the attitude everybody adopts about the SDZ?

I'm not the one bitching about the SDZ and how badly I have been treated here. If your problem isn't with me, then stop bringing up all the problems you have with me. I don't do that to you.

Ironic since it was you that first brought it up in post #256!

 

[Derideo_Te]

One thread limited to a particular purpose makes a mockery of USMB? How does that possibly hurt you? How does the SDZ possibly hurt anybody? Interfere with anybody's rights?

My gosh I have never seen so much butt hurt just because members cannot as easily insult, derail, drive by post, or otherwise disrupt a discussion they disagree with. Everybody has a whole big board out there to start as many threads as they want ranting and raving about whatever to their hearts' content and make sure no intelligent discussion happens about any subject. The world won't come to an end because you have less ability to do that in one designated forum.

I have much appreciated the SDZ just because we have some control over those devote most of their efforts at USMB to destroying threads. If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be, I will agree to just bow out of the SDZ and restrict my posting to the Coffee Shop. Will that make you all happy? Can we then have some sort of live and let live existence here?

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

Care to explain how quoting the exact words of the OP and asking straightforward questions constitutes "destroying the thread so no one can have a discussion"?

And yes, I was reported by FF for doing exactly that.

Is that what you believe constitutes a "structured discussion"? No legitimate criticism allowed?

I don't remember who I reported but I do give a reminder of the thread rules and if a member persists in breaking them, I do report it. I would very much like to know how you know it was me who reported though.

I welcome and encourage all points of view but everybody has to stay within the thread rules.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if the thread rules are not legitimately violated, no mod action of any kind will take place due to a report.

The post was well within the thread rules and I am not going to discuss mod actions since that is a violation of the USMB rules.

Well the only way you could know who reported your post is because a mod told you. And you discussed that.

You are free to make whatever fallacious assumptions you like but kindly refrain from egregiously accusing me of something I never did.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the issue is me, and I suspect it might be

We have had this out before already. No, it isn't you as a person at all. I have no animosity towards you at all. Never have had and probably never will have either.

I only take issue with your Libertarian leanings. My criticism of them is entirely legitimate and if you cannot defend them that is not my problem.

If you have to resort to making up ever more convoluted "OP Rules" in order to protect them what does that tell you about your Libertarian beliefs?

Oh, and you are not the only Libertarian who has to deal with my legitimate criticism of your beliefs. Neither am I the only poster here who criticizes Libertarianism.

So let's drop the "Oh woe is me" act and behave like adults instead, m'kay?

You post your imaginary Libertarian Uptopia and I, and others, will point out how it is will fail in real life. That is what passes for "structured discussion" in this forum.

Peace
DT

I'm not the one bitching about the SDZ and how badly I have been treated here. If your problem isn't with me, then stop bringing up all the problems you have with me. I don't do that to you. If your problem is with me, and your friends agree--Mertex and Dottie obviously do--then I have offered to withdraw from the SDZ because I think it is a great forum and concept and I would like to see it succeed and do not want to be the reason it does not. I mostly post there because I love the concept. But apparently that isn't acceptable to the peanut gallery.

I am perfectly willing to allow anybody else to express themselves any way they choose to do that anywhere they want to do it within the rules. If they offer a subject I'm interested in, I enjoy participating. If I am not interested I don't.

Why can't that be the attitude everybody adopts about the SDZ?

I'm not the one bitching about the SDZ and how badly I have been treated here. If your problem isn't with me, then stop bringing up all the problems you have with me. I don't do that to you.

Ironic since it was you that first brought it up in post #256!

Sorry, I don't see anything like that in Post #256.

 

[Foxfyre]

You hit the nail on the head. The butt hurt cones from the group of posters that live to destroy the threads so no one can have a discussion.

Care to explain how quoting the exact words of the OP and asking straightforward questions constitutes "destroying the thread so no one can have a discussion"?

And yes, I was reported by FF for doing exactly that.

Is that what you believe constitutes a "structured discussion"? No legitimate criticism allowed?

I don't remember who I reported but I do give a reminder of the thread rules and if a member persists in breaking them, I do report it. I would very much like to know how you know it was me who reported though.

I welcome and encourage all points of view but everybody has to stay within the thread rules.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if the thread rules are not legitimately violated, no mod action of any kind will take place due to a report.

The post was well within the thread rules and I am not going to discuss mod actions since that is a violation of the USMB rules.

Well the only way you could know who reported your post is because a mod told you. And you discussed that.

You are free to make whatever fallacious assumptions you like but kindly refrain from egregiously accusing me of something I never did.

You are the one who said Foxfyre reported you. I didn't accuse you of it. You posted it. How do you know that? I would appreciate the courtesy of a response.

cereal_killer, I think this is something we need to know if the report function is to be useful. Are reports made public? The person who is reported is advised of who reported them? If that is the way it is, so be it, but I do think members need to know. I have never been advised if I have been reported, so I have no frame of reference to go by.

 

[Mertex]

Totally agree (bolded) Mertex and I'm not going to disagree with that. However, you are missing the point. If a member wants to exclude a group or groups thats their prerogative.

That wasn't me you were quoting.......it was LL.