Even though we really have no say in the matter, philosophers and those interested in philosophy questions never hesitate to ask them. I think a new rule is a good opportunity to spark some discussion. =D
Let me be the first to assert that this is in no way censorship of any kind. If you think it is, you must understand that genuine censorship can only take place by a government, and this is just a forum. =D
So none of that speak of oppression, my outlook is really more analytical than anything else. Rules have always intrigued me, even as a child. All too often my questions of why would be countered with an unsatisfactory, "because I said so!" and I think that's probably why I've grown so inquisitive.
Now, on to the analysis!
I understand this is just the title, but aren't rules designed to provide clearcut boundaries so that those participating in discussions both equally understand the clarity. That is to say, shouldn't rules eliminate as much opportunity for "the grey areas" as possible?
That being the position I take, this is a very vague way of stating that mature discussions are expected. Debate at it's very core is disagreement. Point for point, counterpoint and more dissension. The very act of any debate is contrary to agreement and peace. Harmony or Unity are also completely beyond the reach of a debate, because for there to be debate there must be disunity otherwise the parties involved agree and have no need for a debate!?
The fact that this vague rule can be applied to any poster in a debate forum opens up some opportunities for undesirable discrimination because in reality, when one person falls victim to this rule he will immediately reduce it to the point I have, and point out the same "crimes" that other posters have gotten away with.
The limitations are what make rules consistently enforceable. Inconsistently applied rules aren't really rules at all, they are the enforcement of whim to whim, moment to moment desires. So when you see something like this "But not limited to" kinda phrasing, it again leaves a large doorway open for nasty situations.
The content of the following A,B and C, become irrelevant because of this extended boundless rule, capable of being enforced on anyone at anytime for anything, because again this is a debate forum... we are all already guilty of breaking all of these rules. The strategy behind a good debater will inevitably involve a little baiting, a little heckling, and whatever else need be to make the point as crystal clear and as strong as the debater feels he wants to make it, or needs to make it.
Ask for a moment, "What COULD the phrase disturbing the peace, entail?" "What could it NOT entail?" Doesn't it beg the question right off the bat... does a debate section have any peace in the first place to be disturbed?
Just curious questions...
Again, and before I close this is not about this particular rule, but about all rules in general, their purpose and function.
What do you guys think?
Let me be the first to assert that this is in no way censorship of any kind. If you think it is, you must understand that genuine censorship can only take place by a government, and this is just a forum. =D
So none of that speak of oppression, my outlook is really more analytical than anything else. Rules have always intrigued me, even as a child. All too often my questions of why would be countered with an unsatisfactory, "because I said so!" and I think that's probably why I've grown so inquisitive.
Now, on to the analysis!
I understand this is just the title, but aren't rules designed to provide clearcut boundaries so that those participating in discussions both equally understand the clarity. That is to say, shouldn't rules eliminate as much opportunity for "the grey areas" as possible?
That being the position I take, this is a very vague way of stating that mature discussions are expected. Debate at it's very core is disagreement. Point for point, counterpoint and more dissension. The very act of any debate is contrary to agreement and peace. Harmony or Unity are also completely beyond the reach of a debate, because for there to be debate there must be disunity otherwise the parties involved agree and have no need for a debate!?
The fact that this vague rule can be applied to any poster in a debate forum opens up some opportunities for undesirable discrimination because in reality, when one person falls victim to this rule he will immediately reduce it to the point I have, and point out the same "crimes" that other posters have gotten away with.
The limitations are what make rules consistently enforceable. Inconsistently applied rules aren't really rules at all, they are the enforcement of whim to whim, moment to moment desires. So when you see something like this "But not limited to" kinda phrasing, it again leaves a large doorway open for nasty situations.
The content of the following A,B and C, become irrelevant because of this extended boundless rule, capable of being enforced on anyone at anytime for anything, because again this is a debate forum... we are all already guilty of breaking all of these rules. The strategy behind a good debater will inevitably involve a little baiting, a little heckling, and whatever else need be to make the point as crystal clear and as strong as the debater feels he wants to make it, or needs to make it.
Ask for a moment, "What COULD the phrase disturbing the peace, entail?" "What could it NOT entail?" Doesn't it beg the question right off the bat... does a debate section have any peace in the first place to be disturbed?
Just curious questions...
Again, and before I close this is not about this particular rule, but about all rules in general, their purpose and function.
What do you guys think?
