Changes to the flaming rule and a rule addition

[Hentenza]

Hi All,

We have been working to try to simplify and define how religious public figures are discussed across the forums. The present rule was just a bit too ambiguous and unenforceable.

What we have done is remove the clause from the flaming rule and add a rule that covers providing supporting statements. This rule applies to all religious figures. So basically all religious figures can be discussed, however, evidence is necessary when making negative comments about them. For example, "religious figure X is a heretic" will result in a violation of the rule, however, "religious figure X is a heretic" because *evidence* might not be ruled a violation.

This rule applies also to most debate topics, including those considered controversial.

The new provide supporting statement rule is as follows:

Provide Supporting Statements
Debate threads can get heated as diverse views are presented and argued. When presenting and arguing a view all members should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial. This applies to discussions on past and present religious figures.


This rule becomes active immediately. Please post any questions or comments here.

 

[K9_Trainer]

Kinda sad when you have to make proper debating tactics a rule Glad its been done though.

 

[pdudgeon]

Kinda sad when you have to make proper debating tactics a rule Glad its been done though.

agreed. doubly sad when the offenders are the ones who are die-hard supporters of the right to debate. (haven't we all seen that!)

 

[Mystman]

While something like this may seem like a good idea, it might cause more trouble than it solves.

How much evidence should you include before posting a controversial statement is acceptable? Especially if you don't want said controversial statement to be the topic? Take homosexuality. If the topic is "should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children?", my answer might be yes (itself a controversial statement), and as supporting statements I might want to mention "homosexuality leans towards 'nature' on the 'nature vs nurture' scale", along with a whole bunch of other arguments (the state shouldn't interfere in peoples lives, homosexuals can make good parents, etc..). But the "nature vs nurture" thing itself is a controversial statement amongst some people. How many sources do I need to provide? What if one of my sources is itself controversial (say.. some atheist liberal statisticians provided one of the numbers): do I need to provide evidence for my evidence for my evidence? When making a simple post about my reasons for accepting/denouncing homosexual adoption, do I need to write an entire thesis out of fear of being reported?

In many of the sub-fora, similar or related threads have the same posters in them. If we just had a giant thread dealing with nature vs nurture, do we really need to keep repeating all the arguments whenever someone mentions it in passing? This rule was probably made to deal with the things like "Mohammed was a pedophile". Everyone with a slight interest in the topic already knows a bunch of arguments in favor and/or against that notion. Does it really help the discussion if people are forced to include cookie-cutter arguments that aren't going to convince anyone anymore?

I don't think this new rule is very practical. You're still going to need to set an arbitrary standard (one that's not specified in the rule itself btw) for how much evidence you need to provide, and how "deep" that evidence is supposed to go. If I want to argue for X, using ABC, the people who agree with ABC might then see it my way. The people who disagree with ABC might go "man, you're so stupid" (and that's ok), or they might try to convince me that X isn't valid because C isn't valid (and that's ok too), to which I might choose to reply or not. In this way, everyone is just debating the things that they want to debate, typing the things that they find intellectually stimulating etc.

 

[K9_Trainer]

It's not that hard to tell when somebody is actually debating and making a case for what they believe and when they're making a one liner comment with no backup that does absolutely nothing to further the discussion.

If you're going to make a claim, back it up. Thats what a debate is all about.

 

[singpeace]

Thank you. It truly is appreciated.

 

[psalms 91]

Of course finding out others opinions and beliefs is always helpful as well.

 

[JoabAnias]

Hi All,

We have been working to try to simplify and define how religious public figures are discussed across the forums. The present rule was just a bit too ambiguous and unenforceable.

What we have done is remove the clause from the flaming rule and add a rule that covers providing supporting statements. This rule applies to all religious figures. So basically all religious figures can be discussed, however, evidence is necessary when making negative comments about them. For example, "religious figure X is a heretic" will result in a violation of the rule, however, "religious figure X is a heretic" because *evidence* might not be ruled a violation.

This rule applies also to most debate topics, including those considered controversial.

The new provide supporting statement rule is as follows:

Provide Supporting Statements
Debate threads can get heated as diverse views are presented and argued. When presenting and arguing a view all members should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial. This applies to discussions on past and present religious figures.


This rule becomes active immediately. Please post any questions or comments here.

Henry, now ya tell me.

Does this apply toward religious figures only? Sounds like a good idea for anyone.

I can't count how many times I have seen goading and baiting felt by the libel of some third person.

 

[bsd31]

This rule is even more ambiguous than no rule at all.