bluejatheist
New Member
In light of recent discussions, it seems to me that it may behoove the forum to consider some form of discussion rules. Nothing along the lines of CrimeStop, but something that acts as a filter, letting the legitimate discussions continue, and the more trollish discussions be isolated and resolved before they turn into 20 page long trolling matches (As much as I enjoy those). A self correcting system that favors intellectually sound discussion and reduces the opposite.
Obviously one issue that arises from this is, who decides what is and isn't acceptable?
I would propose a set of rules enforceable by moderators that are based up several basic principles;
1: Assertions must include citations and references.
Assertions made without evidence will just end up being dismissed with as much. They waste time. The member making the assertion is responsible for backing themselves up with evidence. Arguments that can be demonstrated to be fallacies may also be in violation of this.
2: Discussion participants must acknowledge rebuttals before making further points.
Members should not have to repeatedly post "I'm still waiting on you to answer this question" while the debate opponent picks and chooses easier arguments. If a member has had multiple chances to respond and chose not to, they have violated this principle, and are on the fast track to creating a disorderly, angry mess of a debate.
3: Attempting to build further arguments on refuted points constitutes spam.
If someone simply doesn't acknowledge a refutation, and tries to continue to build their case on already refuted points, they are essentially filling the thread up with pointless words.
4: Pushing previously refuted points constitutes incitement/trolling.
If someone is proven wrong, but continues to make the same points anyway, they are either somehow ignorant of the fact that they were proven wrong, or they are intentionally making their assertions knowing full well they were refuted. This wastes the time of members who take time to refute claims and opens the door to misgivings and disorder.
I contend that enforcement of these or some similar set of rules will result in;
1: A smoother, more streamlined discussion experience for forum users.
Threads will be shorter, and more to the point. No getting lost in the repeated attempts to explain why a point has been refuted.
2: Public debates and discussions that are clear and straightforward both for participants and observers.
Those who are serious about having a legitimate conversation will not have their time wasted, their experience on LOR will be positive.
3: Points made and argued in discussions will be more easily reviewed thanks to access to citations.
Speaks for itself.
4: Discussions that are 'dead ends' due to noncompliance with rules will be put to rest before they waste the forum's time.
No 20 page long threads that get nowhere and leave participants angry or unhappy with their forum experience. Members will be able to devote time to more fruitful discussion.
Obviously one issue that arises from this is, who decides what is and isn't acceptable?
I would propose a set of rules enforceable by moderators that are based up several basic principles;
1: Assertions must include citations and references.
Assertions made without evidence will just end up being dismissed with as much. They waste time. The member making the assertion is responsible for backing themselves up with evidence. Arguments that can be demonstrated to be fallacies may also be in violation of this.
2: Discussion participants must acknowledge rebuttals before making further points.
Members should not have to repeatedly post "I'm still waiting on you to answer this question" while the debate opponent picks and chooses easier arguments. If a member has had multiple chances to respond and chose not to, they have violated this principle, and are on the fast track to creating a disorderly, angry mess of a debate.
3: Attempting to build further arguments on refuted points constitutes spam.
If someone simply doesn't acknowledge a refutation, and tries to continue to build their case on already refuted points, they are essentially filling the thread up with pointless words.
4: Pushing previously refuted points constitutes incitement/trolling.
If someone is proven wrong, but continues to make the same points anyway, they are either somehow ignorant of the fact that they were proven wrong, or they are intentionally making their assertions knowing full well they were refuted. This wastes the time of members who take time to refute claims and opens the door to misgivings and disorder.
I contend that enforcement of these or some similar set of rules will result in;
1: A smoother, more streamlined discussion experience for forum users.
Threads will be shorter, and more to the point. No getting lost in the repeated attempts to explain why a point has been refuted.
2: Public debates and discussions that are clear and straightforward both for participants and observers.
Those who are serious about having a legitimate conversation will not have their time wasted, their experience on LOR will be positive.
3: Points made and argued in discussions will be more easily reviewed thanks to access to citations.
Speaks for itself.
4: Discussions that are 'dead ends' due to noncompliance with rules will be put to rest before they waste the forum's time.
No 20 page long threads that get nowhere and leave participants angry or unhappy with their forum experience. Members will be able to devote time to more fruitful discussion.
Also, at a cursory glance, I feel it would be helpful if you were to define your terms a bit more clearly. I'm only going to directly respond to the 1st point, but ...