Inspired in part by a recent pit thread, I’m wondering if there are accepted rules of debate on the boards. I have searched through the FAQ guidlines and the SDMB registration agreement and I don’t see anything.
My impression is that there are no such rules. Not necessarily, anything goes (see above links) but more, you’re on your own, play nice.
Is that right, or close to right?
I think you’re right. Don’t be a jerk and you’ll be fine. GDers and the Pitizens play rough.
No, there are no official “debate rules”. However, there is an unofficial “debate culture”. A bit of lurking should suffice to figure it out…people are often called upon to produce supporting evidence for their factual claims, if you repeatedly post nonsense people will remember your previous idiocy, things like that. Not that you are required to go along, but people will tend to draw conclusions about you and your opinions if you don’t.
Being too repetitive in one’s subject matter can, of course, get you categorized by other users as an obsessed loon, and being too obsessive can get you similarly categorized by the moderators, which typically leads to negative results. Examples of topics taken to extreme include the Bush administration, the satirical value of Paul Verhoeven films and Superman flying around the Earth fast enough to travel backwards through time. Use these in moderation and you should be okay.
But male circumcision threads–make as many of those as you want.
Oh, there’s plenty of rules. For example
the next step must then be either
Either is acceptable.
This is so closely followed that I assume that failure to follow these rules can result in an immediate banning, and inclusion of your name and picture in the national sex-offender registry.
…and perhaps if you do.
I’ve lurked, posted and started threads and I don’t find any particular set of consistent rules. (Maybe providing a cite.) Sometimes I see where a long time member posts something out-of-hand and gets pats on the back and someone else posts something intelligent, provocative and compelling ( 
) and gets crickets.
I am exaggerating, but I thought maybe there was something I was missing.
BTW-- I meant to out this in ATMB-- sorry.
And vice versa, of course! And any thread that even mentions Bush (even if it’s: what kind of bush is this that is growing in my yard?) must eventually degenerate into a debate about whether the Iraq war was justified.
But seriously… The more cites you give the better, and most people won’t accept a blog as a cite (unless you happen to agree with it 
). Editorials are suspect, too. You really need a hard news cite from the mainstream media. Statments that amount to: “my post is my cite” is generally frowned upon.
Never, ever put something in quotes unless that is exactly what the the person said, word for word. The exception being if you explicitly state that you are paraphrasing. Nothing raises a poster’s ire more than being misquoted. Try not to quote out of context (although that can sometimes be subjective). There are folks who would take this statement:
“I don’t generally support Bush or his policies, but I agree with him here.”
and quote:
then call you a Bush apologist.
Heh, true. Plus, there’s the rule that a thread about any computer operating system, from any era, must become a Mac vs Wintel debate.
No problem at all – I’ll move it over for you.
Not formal rules per se outside of the standard message board regulations we’ve set up, which have evolved over time. Click on the “Rules” hyperlink in the blue band on most every SDMB page.
That being said, each individual forum has slightly different interpretations and little quirks that are specific to the area. You can look these up in the stickies at the top of each thread listing page.
From the very beginning our hope was that we could make regulating content for the community as open and flexible as possible; that’s still our goal. As order has evolved from chaos, it’s become more codified, but still flexible.
In the areas that call for facts, we do expect consise and accurate cites; you should be able to back up what you say. If it’s opinion, it must be labeled as such. In Great Debates, for example, you can’t just slang away at people as if you were in the Pit; there’s expectation of a modicum of polite behavior at the very least. And even in the Pit, there’s limits to how freely you can express whatever needs to be vented.
When in doubt about anything, important or trivial, if you can’t find an answer to your satisfaction in the FAQs, ask us. Start a thread or send an email to the moderators of the relevant forum and we’ll try to get you, um, straightened out.
your humble TubaDiva
Then there is the matter concerning ducks/quacks/echoes needing more discussion. And of course don’t ever forget to say “Hi” to Opal.
If you go in Cafe Society you have to mention Rio by Duran Duran.
If you find yourself losing the debate, its best to declare that you know the fourth word that ends with gry.
Well there are, (1) “Debate rules which, if followed, will keep you from being banned.”
There are also, (2) “Debate rules which, if followed, will assist in the fight against ignorance.”
Number (1) is discussed in the Pit 24/7.
Number (2) comes up now and then, but is given insufficient attention, IMHO. A college course in Rhetoric might help a little.
(There is also (1a), “Bad practices that tend to annoy people”, discussed even more often than (1).)
I realise that you Canadians love your loons so much you put them on your money, but the correct fauna for describing someone obsessed with one type of subject matter is “pony, one trick.”
Don’t forget the one wherein introducing evidence of Near Death Experiences automatically wins the debate (any debate) for you, as anyone who disagrees is afraid of the Truth.
We have nothing to fear but … err … no, don’t tell me, I’ll think of it in a moment …
Bird, mammal… what’s the diff?
