QZ has elements of GQ, and also of IMHO. It is not as strict as GQ. As I have already said, it it NOT a place where people should be looking for informed/expert opinions about the pandemic. If you want that, then go to an official medical website.
For the record, this is what the Registration Agreement has to say
Bolding mine.
I think this is an excellent example of Gish Galloping or sea lioning.
Also, Max_S, remind me never to get on your bad side!
Last question, I promise. Let’s say I want to make a topic about the pandemic, but I don’t want the discussion thrown off by wild speculation. I want more of a GQ style discussion. Is there anything I could put in the OP so that you (the mods) can note/warn people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about?
~Max
I would accept such a thread on the basis that stating opinions when facts are requested would constitute a hijack. But report the OP so I am aware of it.
I suspect we may soon see a boilerplate develop to be added to every QZ OP… 
Okay, thanks.
~Max
I’ve not been following that thread, but I looked up the specific exchange you quoted here and I think SayTwo is being straightforward and BanquetBear is playing a rhetorical game.
It’s possible to have an opinion about the overall subject while acknowledging that specific circumstances might differ and warrant exceptions. Things can be good/bad as a matter of general policy even while there might be instances where the specific circumstances make them bad/good.
I think a person is entitled to offer an opinion on the broader issue without looking into every specific instance offered up by debate opponents to see whether the specific details in that case warrant an exception. It’s OK for that person’s debate opponents to ask them what they think about specific instances, but if they respond that they’re unfamiliar with the specific details in that particular case, then it should be left at that, and no refutation has been made. Turning around and harassing your opponent because they’re unwilling to get involved in a discussion of the specific details of your chosen cases is bad form.
Are you somehow under the belief that those who have dominated that forum represent that? Or more so people who think they know and don’t know enough to know why they don’t?
As I shared in a Pit thread - QZ became a place I personally walked away from. @SayTwo was not why.
The attitude, illustrated even here, that these domineering posters KNOW THE TRUTH and anything other than what they KNOW (one cited in this thread, that schools should be closed) is dangerous misinformation to be suppressed lest all those who come to SDMB QZ to receive their wisdom act recklessly, is why.
Hijacks should be shut down. Report them. Masking and the data showing what they accomplish, now very strong, could be confined to a single thread.
It is quite possible, and I see what you’re saying. I don’t think it applies here because SayTwo didn’t give any examples at all. He/she was asked to provide examples and refused. You can read it further down in the conversation, #1331 through #1334.
~Max
SayTwo never claimed to have any examples. His/her claim was that “science is coming around to a consensus that the closures are no longer worth it”. Examples of evidence in support of that would be the CDC’s recent announcement, based on their study in JAMA, and similar such. It wouldn’t involve opining on closures in this or that country.
That kind of thing is a self-reinforcing loop. As these posters (& compliant/sympathetic staff) impose their views more and more, the opposing views become greater and greater outliers, simply by virtue of becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the MB. This in turn gives more ammunition to the in group as they seek to define opposing views as aberrant and worthy of suppression. And so on, down the line.
I observed a while back, when the SDMB administration began turning to censorship of minority viewpoints, that this was going to be a never ending cycle. Censoring the minority would itself have the effect of changing the makeup of the board, which would turn formerly acceptable views into unacceptable ones, which would then trigger further calls for more censorship, and so on.
Examples are the premises of inductive reasoning. If one makes a general argument, it is assumed that one has examples in support of the conclusion.
~Max
Only if one presumes the assertions in question are based on evidence. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? 
In the absence of evidence I assumed that it was an argument from ignorance; wild speculation, see above.
If SayTwo had cited a CDC report or JAMA study, that would be different. Maybe I missed the cite though.
~Max
Exactly this. The same talking points repeated again and again in more than one thread. Maybe he has memory issues, but I think he’s just trolling.
IIRC those studies were saying a total shut down, a stay in place order for all, wasnt a good idea to apply routinely. America has never had one of those afaik. CA came sorta close for a couple months at the start.
Interesting article
There is real tension in the Quarantine Zone as to style. We have some threads, like breaking news, like discussions of masks or mortality rates, that really ought to be more like GQ in style, with cites and logical reasoning. We have other threads like “what shortages are you seeing?” or “do you know anyone who died?” which are fundamentally anecdotal in nature, and of course should have different standards as a result. We don’t want to go overboard on the medical side, since the dope doesn’t give medical advice. But it does talk about science. And I really do think we could sensibly apply different standards to “do lockdowns work?” as compared to “do you have a fancy mask you wear on special occasions?”
What would you think of using tags to differentiate?
I’d argue that government agencies have a really bad track record on this. They were arguing that wearing masks is dangerous long after that stance was ridiculous, imo, and the WHO was reeeaaaaalllllly slow to acknowledge that covid could be spread by aerosols for what appear to be political reasons. I appreciate having a community of smart people to bat around the data.
But I think we need to be respectful that there’s a lot that isn’t known, and that it doesn’t help fight ignorance to yell down anyone who disagrees with the common wisdom of the board.
I think that is a good idea. I have created a “factual” tag that you should be able to attach to an OP; you may have to enter it in the “optional tags” box. However, since the tag is not obvious, the OP should state they are looking for factual information at the start.
However, be careful what you wish for. If you make the tag “factual” that applies to all posts. (I would probably apply GQ standards to such threads, allowing some fact-based speculation but not just unsupported personal opinions.)
Thank you. This is great. I’ve been wanting to start a thread that requires the posters to only post studies, reports or literature in support of their claims. But I was uncertain about the rule that the OP doesn’t own their thread and how it goes.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll be sure to use the tag and put the request in the title.
You misunderstand. I’m referring to your advice, saying that people should not respond to SayTwo if he frustrates them so much. If we all take that advice, then the false claims would remain unchecked. Thus this is not a viable solution.
You were saying no one has an obligation to respond. I’m arguing there is indeed such an obligation, if you see that the statement in question is being left unchecked. Because leaving it unchecked spreads misinformation. And even if it has been debunked, people have to read it, and consider whether it has been debunked thoroughly.
This is a serious issue, and there’s a moral obligation to try and prevent misinformation on this issue, as that misinformation is killing people. Any argument we don’t have to do so doesn’t work in this case, unlike, say, someone not liking a TV show we like.