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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have no clue what was in the post that was removed.

It was quoted in blue in the post you just replied to!

So what was the attachment? Is that the whole post? I do vaguely recall that you had been accusing me of making offensive (or some such) statements because of a couple of the poll options that people could check if they agreed with or not. I didn't check those two options myself. But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed.

That was a really good thread though--lots of pertinent and thoughtful comments by a number of members who really wanted to discuss the topic instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself. We need a whole lot more of that on USMB.

The attachment was a screenshot of your poll questions which is what I was asking questions about.

That you believe that asking legitimate questions about the OP poll is "outside the rules for the thread" then you have just admitted to reporting it.

"But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed."​

Another fallacious assumption on your part.

"...instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself."​

And another!

It is perfectly legitimate to question the OP in a "structured discussion". That doesn't mean that someone has "problems" with you or the "way you express yourself". It means that they want answers to what you wrote in the OP.

If you cannot defend your own OP's and require inane "rules" in order to protect them from being questioned otherwise you will report them as imaginary "violations" then you are not participating in any semblance of a "structured discussion" because what you are actually doing is de facto censorship.

Structured discussions include questions and legitimate criticisms of the positions. That you cannot separate your personal feelings from the points under discussion and take everything personally is not my problem.

Yes, I enjoy legitimate structured discussions where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. When someone violates those principles and files a false report then they should be held accountable IMO.

True.

If one doesn't want the premise of her threads challenged and exposed to be false and invalid, then she needs to research first and test the validity of her premise before posting.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no clue what was in the post that was removed.

It was quoted in blue in the post you just replied to!

So what was the attachment? Is that the whole post? I do vaguely recall that you had been accusing me of making offensive (or some such) statements because of a couple of the poll options that people could check if they agreed with or not. I didn't check those two options myself. But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed.

That was a really good thread though--lots of pertinent and thoughtful comments by a number of members who really wanted to discuss the topic instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself. We need a whole lot more of that on USMB.

The attachment was a screenshot of your poll questions which is what I was asking questions about.

That you believe that asking legitimate questions about the OP poll is "outside the rules for the thread" then you have just admitted to reporting it.

"But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed."​

Another fallacious assumption on your part.

"...instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself."​

And another!

It is perfectly legitimate to question the OP in a "structured discussion". That doesn't mean that someone has "problems" with you or the "way you express yourself". It means that they want answers to what you wrote in the OP.

If you cannot defend your own OP's and require inane "rules" in order to protect them from being questioned otherwise you will report them as imaginary "violations" then you are not participating in any semblance of a "structured discussion" because what you are actually doing is de facto censorship.

Structured discussions include questions and legitimate criticisms of the positions. That you cannot separate your personal feelings from the points under discussion and take everything personally is not my problem.

Yes, I enjoy legitimate structured discussions where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. When someone violates those principles and files a false report then they should be held accountable IMO.

Maybe I need to type more slowly and use smaller words and then I might be understood?

If you don't like me.
If you don't like my political or social views.
If you don't like my thread topic.
If you don't like the content of my polls.
If you don't like my OP.
If you don't like the way I express myself.

Then. . . .

Don't post in my threads. Put me on ignore. Scroll over my posts. Whatever it takes to make you happy, do it. But if being happy means I have to agree with you or conform to what you think I should post or how you think I should express myself, it ain't gonna happen. You might as well give up on that.

And that goes for everybody who thinks they have the moral authority to dictate to me how I must conduct myself on a message board. If C_K or the mods have a problem with me they will discipline me or ban me and so be it. But if I choose not to conform to a bunch of whiny brats who think I should have to do it the way they say I should do it, you are all either going to have to ignore it or live with it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have no clue what was in the post that was removed.

It was quoted in blue in the post you just replied to!

So what was the attachment? Is that the whole post? I do vaguely recall that you had been accusing me of making offensive (or some such) statements because of a couple of the poll options that people could check if they agreed with or not. I didn't check those two options myself. But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed.

That was a really good thread though--lots of pertinent and thoughtful comments by a number of members who really wanted to discuss the topic instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself. We need a whole lot more of that on USMB.

The attachment was a screenshot of your poll questions which is what I was asking questions about.

That you believe that asking legitimate questions about the OP poll is "outside the rules for the thread" then you have just admitted to reporting it.

"But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed."​

Another fallacious assumption on your part.

"...instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself."​

And another!

It is perfectly legitimate to question the OP in a "structured discussion". That doesn't mean that someone has "problems" with you or the "way you express yourself". It means that they want answers to what you wrote in the OP.

If you cannot defend your own OP's and require inane "rules" in order to protect them from being questioned otherwise you will report them as imaginary "violations" then you are not participating in any semblance of a "structured discussion" because what you are actually doing is de facto censorship.

Structured discussions include questions and legitimate criticisms of the positions. That you cannot separate your personal feelings from the points under discussion and take everything personally is not my problem.

Yes, I enjoy legitimate structured discussions where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. When someone violates those principles and files a false report then they should be held accountable IMO.

Maybe I need to type more slowly and use smaller words and then I might be understood?

If you don't like me.
If you don't like my political or social views.
If you don't like my thread topic.
If you don't like the content of my polls.
If you don't like my OP.
If you don't like the way I express myself.

Then. . . .

Don't post in my threads. Put me on ignore. Scroll over my posts. Whatever it takes to make you happy, do it. But if being happy means I have to agree with you or conform to what you think I should post or how you think I should express myself, it ain't gonna happen. You might as well give up on that.

And that goes for everybody who thinks they have the moral authority to dictate to me how I must conduct myself on a message board. If C_K or the mods have a problem with me they will discipline me or ban me and so be it. But if I choose not to conform to a bunch of whiny brats who think I should have to do it they way they say I should do it, you are all either going to have to ignore it or live with it.

Once again you make this personal!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with you as a person.

Your positions are legitimately criticized because they contain fallacies. That is readily apparent given that many posters point them out.

That does not mean you, personally, are being criticized or that no one likes you or that anyone is trying to impose some mythical "moral authority" over you.

All of that is just a red herring on your part because you cannot deal with legitimate criticism of your positions. No one, including myself, is above legitimate criticism. When it happens the adult way to deal with it is to admit that you are wrong and move on. That isn't difficult and it is how a normal structured discussion takes place.

On the other hand if you believe that tossing out ad hom's about "whiny brats" is what structured discussion is all about then yes, you are the one who is never going to be happy because no one is going to stop posting their legitimate criticism of your positions no matter how many "OP Rules" you invent and posts that you fallaciously report.

So really the choice is all yours. Learn how to deal with legitimate criticism and respond accordingly or continue as you are and deal with the consequences.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no clue what was in the post that was removed.

It was quoted in blue in the post you just replied to!

So what was the attachment? Is that the whole post? I do vaguely recall that you had been accusing me of making offensive (or some such) statements because of a couple of the poll options that people could check if they agreed with or not. I didn't check those two options myself. But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed.

That was a really good thread though--lots of pertinent and thoughtful comments by a number of members who really wanted to discuss the topic instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself. We need a whole lot more of that on USMB.

The attachment was a screenshot of your poll questions which is what I was asking questions about.

That you believe that asking legitimate questions about the OP poll is "outside the rules for the thread" then you have just admitted to reporting it.

"But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed."​

Another fallacious assumption on your part.

"...instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself."​

And another!

It is perfectly legitimate to question the OP in a "structured discussion". That doesn't mean that someone has "problems" with you or the "way you express yourself". It means that they want answers to what you wrote in the OP.

If you cannot defend your own OP's and require inane "rules" in order to protect them from being questioned otherwise you will report them as imaginary "violations" then you are not participating in any semblance of a "structured discussion" because what you are actually doing is de facto censorship.

Structured discussions include questions and legitimate criticisms of the positions. That you cannot separate your personal feelings from the points under discussion and take everything personally is not my problem.

Yes, I enjoy legitimate structured discussions where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. When someone violates those principles and files a false report then they should be held accountable IMO.

Maybe I need to type more slowly and use smaller words and then I might be understood?

If you don't like me.
If you don't like my political or social views.
If you don't like my thread topic.
If you don't like the content of my polls.
If you don't like my OP.
If you don't like the way I express myself.

Then. . . .

Don't post in my threads. Put me on ignore. Scroll over my posts. Whatever it takes to make you happy, do it. But if being happy means I have to agree with you or conform to what you think I should post or how you think I should express myself, it ain't gonna happen. You might as well give up on that.

And that goes for everybody who thinks they have the moral authority to dictate to me how I must conduct myself on a message board. If C_K or the mods have a problem with me they will discipline me or ban me and so be it. But if I choose not to conform to a bunch of whiny brats who think I should have to do it they way they say I should do it, you are all either going to have to ignore it or live with it.

Once again you make this personal!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with you as a person.

Your positions are legitimately criticized because they contain fallacies. That is readily apparent given that many posters point them out.

That does not mean you, personally, are being criticized or that no one likes you or that anyone is trying to impose some mythical "moral authority" over you.

All of that is just a red herring on your part because you cannot deal with legitimate criticism of your positions. No one, including myself, is above legitimate criticism. When it happens the adult way to deal with it is to admit that you are wrong and move on. That isn't difficult and it is how a normal structured discussion takes place.

On the other hand if you believe that tossing out ad hom's about "whiny brats" is what structured discussion is all about then yes, you are the one who is never going to be happy because no one is going to stop posting their legitimate criticism of your positions no matter how many "OP Rules" you invent and posts that you fallaciously report.

So really the choice is all yours. Learn how to deal with legitimate criticism and respond accordingly or continue as you are and deal with the consequences.

When you again and again and again post your personal criticisms of me and my posting style, yeah, I take that personally. When you encourage your friends to do the same--which I have been advised you do--yeah, I take that personally. I don't follow you around trying to provoke a personal argument. I leave you alone as much as possible. I accommodate you as I try to do with everybody else when you are civil and I object as I try to do with everybody else when you are not civil in my threads.

For the rest of it I'll simply refer you to my post #302.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been thinking about something Mertex said yesterday that nobody really took all that seriously at the time--the issue of a post being reported that resulted in the thread being closed. I think we shouldn't have glossed over that so quickly.

I don't know what thread it was or what the circumstances were, but usually when that happens, the thread has already mostly dissolved into personal insults and a schoolyard food fight. If that was not the case with the thread in question, she could have a legitimate beef but again I don't know the circumstances.

The beauty of the SDZ though is it allows us some ammunition to keep that from happening in the first place.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yeah I forgot you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid cause they don't use 500 words that mean completely different things as the same word based on your understanding that everything is everything as long as the ends justify your means.

So sorry I have made that impression on you. I suppose you won't be interested in having a discussion with such a despicable person. It's nice there are so many more acceptable people to deal with here.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yeah I forgot you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid cause they don't use 500 words that mean completely different things as the same word based on your understanding that everything is everything as long as the ends justify your means.

So sorry I have made that impression on you. I suppose you won't be interested in having a discussion with such a despicable person. It's nice there are so many more acceptable people to deal with here.

Pull my finger.

 

[Gracie]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It was quoted in blue in the post you just replied to!

So what was the attachment? Is that the whole post? I do vaguely recall that you had been accusing me of making offensive (or some such) statements because of a couple of the poll options that people could check if they agreed with or not. I didn't check those two options myself. But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed.

That was a really good thread though--lots of pertinent and thoughtful comments by a number of members who really wanted to discuss the topic instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself. We need a whole lot more of that on USMB.

The attachment was a screenshot of your poll questions which is what I was asking questions about.

That you believe that asking legitimate questions about the OP poll is "outside the rules for the thread" then you have just admitted to reporting it.

"But if the post was reported by me, and I don't recall whether I reported it, it was because I believed it was clearly outside the rules for the thread. Apparently it was too if it was in fact removed."​

Another fallacious assumption on your part.

"...instead of whatever problems somebody had with me or the way I expressed myself."​

And another!

It is perfectly legitimate to question the OP in a "structured discussion". That doesn't mean that someone has "problems" with you or the "way you express yourself". It means that they want answers to what you wrote in the OP.

If you cannot defend your own OP's and require inane "rules" in order to protect them from being questioned otherwise you will report them as imaginary "violations" then you are not participating in any semblance of a "structured discussion" because what you are actually doing is de facto censorship.

Structured discussions include questions and legitimate criticisms of the positions. That you cannot separate your personal feelings from the points under discussion and take everything personally is not my problem.

Yes, I enjoy legitimate structured discussions where everyone is treated equally and respectfully. When someone violates those principles and files a false report then they should be held accountable IMO.

Maybe I need to type more slowly and use smaller words and then I might be understood?

If you don't like me.
If you don't like my political or social views.
If you don't like my thread topic.
If you don't like the content of my polls.
If you don't like my OP.
If you don't like the way I express myself.

Then. . . .

Don't post in my threads. Put me on ignore. Scroll over my posts. Whatever it takes to make you happy, do it. But if being happy means I have to agree with you or conform to what you think I should post or how you think I should express myself, it ain't gonna happen. You might as well give up on that.

And that goes for everybody who thinks they have the moral authority to dictate to me how I must conduct myself on a message board. If C_K or the mods have a problem with me they will discipline me or ban me and so be it. But if I choose not to conform to a bunch of whiny brats who think I should have to do it they way they say I should do it, you are all either going to have to ignore it or live with it.

Once again you make this personal!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with you as a person.

Your positions are legitimately criticized because they contain fallacies. That is readily apparent given that many posters point them out.

That does not mean you, personally, are being criticized or that no one likes you or that anyone is trying to impose some mythical "moral authority" over you.

All of that is just a red herring on your part because you cannot deal with legitimate criticism of your positions. No one, including myself, is above legitimate criticism. When it happens the adult way to deal with it is to admit that you are wrong and move on. That isn't difficult and it is how a normal structured discussion takes place.

On the other hand if you believe that tossing out ad hom's about "whiny brats" is what structured discussion is all about then yes, you are the one who is never going to be happy because no one is going to stop posting their legitimate criticism of your positions no matter how many "OP Rules" you invent and posts that you fallaciously report.

So really the choice is all yours. Learn how to deal with legitimate criticism and respond accordingly or continue as you are and deal with the consequences.

When you again and again and again post your personal criticisms of me and my posting style, yeah, I take that personally. When you encourage your friends to do the same--which I have been advised you do--yeah, I take that personally. I don't follow you around trying to provoke a personal argument. I leave you alone as much as possible. I accommodate you as I try to do with everybody else when you are civil and I object as I try to do with everybody else when you are not civil in my threads.

For the rest of it I'll simply refer you to my post #302.

When you again and again and again post your personal criticisms of me and my posting style, yeah, I take that personally.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

When you encourage your friends to do the same--which I have been advised you do--yeah, I take that personally.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

I don't follow you around trying to provoke a personal argument. I leave you alone as much as possible.

Neither do I and I leave you completely alone unless we happen to encounter each other's posts here in the SDF.

I accommodate you as I try to do with everybody else when you are civil

Likewise!

I object as I try to do with everybody else when you are not civil in my threads.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think the intent of the SDZ may have been benign but the end result is anything but. All one need do is look at 80% of the thread titles in there.

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Thank you for agreeing with the premise of this thread!

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

 

[Gracie]

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

There is never any serious discussion here. Not that I see, anyway. The well is poisoned. Those who drink from the well get poisoned too. I'd like to be able to just chat pleasantly without some schmuck ALWAYS finding a way to shit on the carpet just for funzies. Used to be able to do that here. Now? There is shit everywhere.
I don't know where you post, but I've been looking around myself. This place makes me on guard and I know to keep my eyes down so I don't step in a pile..or worse...a pile thrown at me or someone else and it splatters my way. And when I do find that place (if one exists), I'm done here.
Never thought I would say or even think that, but....there it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

There is never any serious discussion here. Not that I see, anyway. The well is poisoned. Those who drink from the well get poisoned too. I'd like to be able to just chat pleasantly without some schmuck ALWAYS finding a way to shit on the carpet just for funzies. Used to be able to do that here. Now? There is shit everywhere.
I don't know where you post, but I've been looking around myself. This place makes me on guard and I know to keep my eyes down so I don't step in a pile..or worse...a pile thrown at me or someone else and it splatters my way. And when I do find that place (if one exists), I'm done here.
Never thought I would say or even think that, but....there it is.

Well if we could get enough serious discussions into the SDZ to outnumber those who don't want it to succeed, that could be our refuge.

I'm hoping that Republican voter thread will become active as soon as new candidates announce and the election heats up. It is a chance for those who are probably going to vote GOP to be able to really hash out their preferences and make their pitches without a lot of unrelated stuff thrown in by the anti-GOP folks. (I understand why the OP was worded the way it was, but I wish it had allowed the serious undecideds in.) There is nothing keeping the Democrats and libertarians from doing the same thing or for the undecideds to start an all purpose thread.

But again, I am discouraged that we will ever be allowed to have threads that disallow trolling and disruptions in peace. Waiting for that atttitude adjustment.

But do check out the SDZ. I know you didn't warm up to the 'secession' thread but you didn't disrupt it either and I was happy you stopped by. There are lots of others that are less complicated.

 

[Gracie]

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

There is never any serious discussion here. Not that I see, anyway. The well is poisoned. Those who drink from the well get poisoned too. I'd like to be able to just chat pleasantly without some schmuck ALWAYS finding a way to shit on the carpet just for funzies. Used to be able to do that here. Now? There is shit everywhere.
I don't know where you post, but I've been looking around myself. This place makes me on guard and I know to keep my eyes down so I don't step in a pile..or worse...a pile thrown at me or someone else and it splatters my way. And when I do find that place (if one exists), I'm done here.
Never thought I would say or even think that, but....there it is.

Well if we could get enough serious discussions into the SDZ to outnumber those who don't want it to succeed, that could be our refuge.

I'm hoping that Republican voter thread will become active as soon as new candidates announce and the election heats up. It is a chance for those who are probably going to vote GOP to be able to really hash out their preferences and make their pitches without a lot of unrelated stuff thrown in by the anti-GOP folks. (I understand why the OP was worded the way it was, but I wish it had allowed the serious undecideds in.) There is nothing keeping the Democrats and libertarians from doing the same thing or for the undecideds to start an all purpose thread.

But again, I am discouraged that we will ever be allowed to have threads that disallow trolling and disruptions in peace. Waiting for that atttitude adjustment.

But do check out the SDZ. I know you didn't warm up to the 'secession' thread but you didn't disrupt it either and I was happy you stopped by. There are lots of others that are less complicated.

It's still in the poisoned well. This whole board is nothing but negativity. It affects me. And probably others as well, hence most being assholes all the time. Come here, and BOOM! Instant nastiness.

I'll keep looking. This well is unfit for human comsumption if in it too long.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

There is never any serious discussion here. Not that I see, anyway. The well is poisoned. Those who drink from the well get poisoned too. I'd like to be able to just chat pleasantly without some schmuck ALWAYS finding a way to shit on the carpet just for funzies. Used to be able to do that here. Now? There is shit everywhere.
I don't know where you post, but I've been looking around myself. This place makes me on guard and I know to keep my eyes down so I don't step in a pile..or worse...a pile thrown at me or someone else and it splatters my way. And when I do find that place (if one exists), I'm done here.
Never thought I would say or even think that, but....there it is.

Well if we could get enough serious discussions into the SDZ to outnumber those who don't want it to succeed, that could be our refuge.

I'm hoping that Republican voter thread will become active as soon as new candidates announce and the election heats up. It is a chance for those who are probably going to vote GOP to be able to really hash out their preferences and make their pitches without a lot of unrelated stuff thrown in by the anti-GOP folks. (I understand why the OP was worded the way it was, but I wish it had allowed the serious undecideds in.) There is nothing keeping the Democrats and libertarians from doing the same thing or for the undecideds to start an all purpose thread.

But again, I am discouraged that we will ever be allowed to have threads that disallow trolling and disruptions in peace. Waiting for that atttitude adjustment.

But do check out the SDZ. I know you didn't warm up to the 'secession' thread but you didn't disrupt it either and I was happy you stopped by. There are lots of others that are less complicated.

It's still in the poisoned well. This whole board is nothing but negativity. It affects me. And probably others as well, hence most being assholes all the time. Come here, and BOOM! Instant nastiness.

I'll keep looking. This well is unfit for human comsumption if in it too long.

I appreciate the sentiment. Every time I get involved in a thread like this one, I have to fight the urge to decide it isn't worth it and just walk away.

But then my ID is 'eternal optimist' and I don't easily accept that something can't be done just because it is hard or because there is opposition. So I am hopeful that I can achieve an attitude adjustment and get enthusiastic again. I honestly did have high hopes that the SDZ as C_K designed it would be what I was looking for. And it still could be if enough would just decide to make it happen.