Hello GDenizens!
How do we set our standards of behavior in this forum? Specifically, what are the allowable parameters of debate tactic outside of which a Straight Doper in good standing should refrain from travelling?
That’s the question posed in a different thread, which, as those who have followed it already understand, I’ve promised not to link or refer to in this thread. The question as originally posed to me was phrased a bit differently, as it assumed a particular case or set of circumstances. I’d like to start out in a more general way, and first explore the ideal expectations for debate in this forum, after which, if any sort of consensus can be reached, we can discuss whether special case scenarios necessarily allow relaxation (or require tightening) of those expectations. It’s my belief that this discussion can be conducted without any of us exhibiting every debate tactic which will be described, and it’s my fervent hope that we can avoid all but the most straightforward of those tactics. But debate this we will. If misbehavior is detected, please expect an immediate and profound virtual wedgie to be applied (by whoever gets to it first).
Let’s start with the bare-bones procedural requirements for debating via message board. Perhaps the most effective method of determining procedure for any process is to map the conditions under which that process is conducted, list the starting and [projected or intended] end points of the process, and determine any necessary milestones or requisite functions which must be included in the process due to real world constraints (physical, legal, etc.).
What follows is my attempt to start the mapping.
Conditions and Constraints. We are communicating via internet connections on a platform owned and operated by the Chicago Reader. The platform, a message board, is separated into themed fora, each moderated by one or more administrative volunteers, authorized by the MB owner to perform such moderation. Q&A, assertion and rebuttal, argument and refutation, all take place at the convenience of the participants; there is no real-time discussion on the fora. (That, presumably, is what chat is for.) We are prohibited in the extent to which we can quote and link to sites outside the auspices of the Reader; this is to protect copyright laws and to comply with standards imposed by the Reader to keep them out of legal trouble. We have only limited control over the appearance of our posts, and as members cannot directly edit our posts once submitted. We have certain limits as to the size of individual posts, although as one who has tested those limits and not yet found them, I can’t say exactly what those limits are.
Starting, Finishing and Milestones. The beginning of a debate is usually the posting of a singular perspective regarding a phenomenon, condition, philosophy or theory. The first essential milestone of any debate must be the declaration of a position regarding the phenomenon, condition, etc. Dissenting and confirming opinions are solicited and/or returned, or the thread dies the ignoble death of all ignored OP’s and slides off the bottom of the page over time. Arguments are submitted, either to support or attack specific positions. In the end, the discussion either resolves certain issues through consensus, clarifies the positions of various participants, or merely peters out through frustration or inattention of the combatants. The intended end, on this particular MB, is some eradication of ignorance.
Other Considerations: On this MB, don’t be a jerk.
Now, here’s where I’d like to give the floor to whoever wants to add to the map, question the validity of any of the listed conditions, constraints or milestones, or offer up any inferences we can make regarding the procedural necessities of the debate process based on this map.
I’m going to give it at least a few hours (mainly because I have some personal business -like supper and childcare- to attend). Have fun, kids.
