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

[JakeStarkey]

SDZ will inevitably boil down to a "it's my party" or "It's my ball" or whatever we were taught were childish and immature ways of dominating social interaction.

Since the hard heads can't have rep, they want a forum where they can pontificate without real debate.

If the libertarians or the storm fronter or the NBPP want a min-mod refereed 'it's our way, amigos' board, let them make one.

 

[BlackSand]

SDZ will inevitably boil down to a "it's my party" or "It's my ball" or whatever we were taught were childish and immature ways of dominating social interaction.

Since the hard heads can't have rep, they want a forum where they can pontificate without real debate.

If the libertarians or the storm fronter of the NBPP want a min-mod referreed 'it's our way, amigos' board, let them make one.

Bingo ... And a great example!

.

 

[jillian]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

Whatever.

The rules for the forum stated that improper Opening Posts would result in the thread being moved to another forum. I have had no complaints from authorities that any of my Opening Posts have been improper in any way. But if they are improper in your eyes, please feel free to report them and complain to your heart's content.

If the SDZ is going to be a place where a few people can dictate to everybody else how they phrase their OP and the rules for it and/or dictate how terms must be defined, then I'm out of here.

I'll leave it to the moderation team to determine that however.

at the "discretion" of someone who thinks if you don't agree with her you're derailing her threads.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

Whatever.

The rules for the forum stated that improper Opening Posts would result in the thread being moved to another forum. I have had no complaints from authorities that any of my Opening Posts have been improper in any way. But if they are improper in your eyes, please feel free to report them and complain to your heart's content.

If the SDZ is going to be a place where a few people can dictate to everybody else how they phrase their OP and the rules for it and/or dictate how terms must be defined, then I'm out of here.

I'll leave it to the moderation team to determine that however.

at the "discretion" of someone who thinks if you don't agree with her you're derailing her threads.

Every narcissist's dream come true.

 

[Ravi]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

Whatever.

The rules for the forum stated that improper Opening Posts would result in the thread being moved to another forum. I have had no complaints from authorities that any of my Opening Posts have been improper in any way. But if they are improper in your eyes, please feel free to report them and complain to your heart's content.

If the SDZ is going to be a place where a few people can dictate to everybody else how they phrase their OP and the rules for it and/or dictate how terms must be defined, then I'm out of here.

I'll leave it to the moderation team to determine that however.

The SDZ is in Beta mode and figuring out the rules is all part of the process which is what this thread is intended to be all about.

What is patently obvious is that there are some rules everyone agrees upon such as no ad homs and others that are nothing more than partisan attempts to avoid legitimate criticism.

If the SDZ is going to allow the latter then it will be nothing more than an partisan propaganda forum where no dissent is allowed. That would be counterproductive to USMB's business model and therefore unlikely to happen. If it means that you won't participate because you will be held accountable for inflammatory partisanship in your OP's then sobeit.

Oh, and your failure to substantiate your defamatory partisan allegation has seriously damaged your credibility IMO. Just thought you might like to take that legitimate criticism into account when you post in future. Just a little friendly advice that is worth everything that you just paid for it.

Time to summarize what we have learned in this thread.

I'll go further than just suggesting that if you don't like my posts, you don't like my opening posts, you don't like my rules, just report me DT. That's all I ask.

I'll stay out of your threads to avoid any chance of annoying you and you certainly should stay out of mine if they offend you. I won't dictate to you how to structure your threads and rules and you don't dictate to me how I structure mine.

I suggest we both take a live and let live attitude about it all and chill.

Again if you can get the mods to agree with you, power to you. I won't be participating on this forum further if that is the case, but it is definitely a free county. And if you have made a better argument than I have then good for you.

Now I will not respond further and I will leave your thread and will not post in any of your threads since my views are so unacceptable. That's the best deal I can offer you. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

If the mods don't agree with you, you will take your ball and go home. Thank you for proving the OP's point.

 

[BlackSand]

If the mods don't agree with you, you will take your ball and go home. Thank you for proving the OP's point.

If it is no different than any of the other sections ... Then there would be no need to participate here than anywhere else at USMB.
We are all at home here at USMB ... And don't have to take anything from anybody to get here.

.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Hence this is a thread of liberals whining they can't derail, troll and insult in a debate, like they do in every other forum.

I love this new forum!

 

[boedicca]

In response to the OP: Yes.

The End.

 

[JakeStarkey]

tps "Hence this is a thread of liberals whining they can't derail, troll and insult in a debate, like they do in every other forum."

The above is exactly what the far right and somel libertarians did before Stat figured how to slay the rep beast.

The SDZ offers the weirdies of both wings plus the libertarians and conspiracy folks a safe avenue to vent to their hearts' content.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Call it the Propaganda Forum and be done with it.

What would make this different from the Political Forum.

I've read through several threads on that one and have determined, it is a HUGE waste of time (for me).

Many of the threads degenerate into the same name calling flame fests.

 

[Roadrunner]

There is a blue tag to alert me to enter at my own risk.

Therefore, I do not call it censorship.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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

Let me put it this way:

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

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



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

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

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

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

This is actually very promising.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I agree that derailing and trolling are not good.

That is why we have a CDZ and have no need for a SDZ.

I am new to the board.

I was excited to see the concept of a Clean DEBATE Zone.

I started reading some of the threads.

In my estimation (and I clearly state this is my opinion), many of the OP's are not the kind of opening "arguments" you would expect to find in a debate. In some cases, they simply ask a question (they take no position). That is not debate.

From what I have read so far, the CDZ and SDZ cannot be equated. There is no moderation of the threads in the CDZ except for flaming (from what I can tell...and even then, it get's somewhat personal).

Therefore, I cannot agree with your assertion.

I think this forum holds great potential.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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

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

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

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

Violations of general rules is one thing.

What I am suggesting is that if you chose to start a thread, you also get three other members to judge your performance. Just like in a debating competition.

This would force people to stay structured. The OP would not then be able to just trim off whoever he or she wants simply because they don't like being countered.

The trick would be to get a stable of judges that people would trust.