Honest Debate Rule

[Paulos23]

A similar but more comprehencive type of debating rule can do more toward what your after without "punishments" involved. Punishing often hides the truth rather than exposing it.

"Resolution debating" requires that each point of an argument be settled before the next is addressed. Both opponents must agree on each point in order to make progress. If agreement can not be reached, then the point is broken down into its reasoning and the debate continues until that point is settled.

If after deep extraction of the reasoning for a single point, the point still can not be resolved, then the debate becomes about the irresolvable point fore it has been identified as the true resolve of the original argument.

Such debating allows the audience to see every detail of exactly what is being understood void of the distractive and insidious efforts involved in political debating merely for votes.

By the "end" of a resolution debate, the opponents can no longer disagree and thus the issue is resolved.

This method would supercede what you are proposing in that it forces the honest truth to either be agreed upon or analysed until all see the same truth.

I am all for this.

 

[Pseudonym]

If you consider other members behaviur to be trolling,ignore it,dont feed it,and if they get offensive,report,do not respond.Thsi simple strategy if applied by all the members would single ut the trolling members pretty fast.

The only problem is, and this is where I agree with ReluctantProphet's statement, is that the creationists and site supporters do not get punished for violating the rules. Like in my thread asking for scientific creationism, you and I both asked and told a certain member to stay on topic or get out, yet he did neither and continued to derail the thread.

 

[TheBear]

The only problem is, and this is where I agree with ReluctantProphet's statement, is that the creationists and site supporters do not get punished for violating the rules. Like in my thread asking for scientific creationism, you and I both asked and told a certain member to stay on topic or get out, yet he did neither and continued to derail the thread.

I agree.

There needs to be some kind of control over this madness.

 

[steen]

I like this idea too, but the antagonizing poster still has the ability to post in the thread, which defeats the spirit of the rule. I'm curious to know if there is any way to ban violating members from certain threads and if this is a feasible solution.

We could simply all put them on "ignore." I have done so with a couple of creationists and saved myself from a lot of pointless reading of nonsense.

 

[b*unique]

The only problem is, and this is where I agree with ReluctantProphet's statement, is that the creationists and site supporters do not get punished for violating the rules. Like in my thread asking for scientific creationism, you and I both asked and told a certain member to stay on topic or get out, yet he did neither and continued to derail the thread.

nobody gets punished
and you know I try my best to treat all members the same
I have been supporter from day one,and never display this
for example

many people hide the supporter status
anyway,being a supporter only saves you time and seeing the silly adds,but it does not save you from keeping the rules

i cant stop anyone posting,but you all can stop it,by not responding

 

[TheBear]

Sadly, it looks like the only way to control the rampant madness and distractions in the discussions, is in the formal debate area, where specific parameters of debate are agreed to by both parties.

Other than that - Welcome to the Romper Room, kids!

 

[b*unique]

i dont see why is it so dificult to simple ignore the posts you find bad,
if they offend you,report,if they just frustrate youmlet them be and move on

how dificult is that?
to respond in a childish way to a childish post hardly makes it better

 

[Dannager]

i dont see why is it so dificult to simple ignore the posts you find bad,
if they offend you,report,if they just frustrate youmlet them be and move on

how dificult is that?
to respond in a childish way to a childish post hardly makes it better

I shouldn't need to reillustrate the fact that many of us do not find ignoring creationist-started threads to be an acceptable way of presenting ourself to the lurkers.

 

[b*unique]

I shouldn't need to reillustrate the fact that many of us do not find ignoring creationist-started threads to be an acceptable way of presenting ourself to the lurkers.

you can present your argumen,back it up and leave the lurkers to decide,do they really need to be patronised?

 

[JohnR7]

nobody gets punished

It is very easy to put someone on ignore. But that does not stop them from spreading their poison and trying to control public opinion that others have about you and what your saying. Sometimes it is better to defend yourself, so that people can see both sides of the issue.

Proverbs 18:17
The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.

 

[USincognito]

I voted no but I was torn.

I think people should either put up or shut up if they're doing to make claims here. I think people should have to keep on topic rather than ramble off on tangents. I think people shouldn't be able to post thread after thread of nonsense and then either not support their claims or ramble off on tangents when challenged on the content of their OP.

That said, the best response to problem posters is to have mods address those problem posters with a scalpal than with WMDs - Warnings and Message Deletions for everyone. The best response to speech we don't like is more free speech. When the problem however, isn't the speech, but the speaker, then it's up to Staff to do something about it.

Whoever pointed out that we can use the ignore function - and I have about 15 people in my list - but that doesn't stop us from being effected by spammers and instransigents is correct because others respond to them propping up their threads on the forum front page or adding 3 or 4 pages of tengental bickering to threads we're interested in and trying to keep track of.

No to more rules. No to rules that are so elastic that anything can be a violation. Yes to Staff addressing actual problem children.

 

[AirPo]

I voted no. I think that anything more than keeping it civil is taking it way too seriously. From a personal standpoint, I find the old saying about arguing on the internet really helps keep things in perspective for me.