# What rule changes would you propose to strengthen/improve GD? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 25, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440 "2010-01-25T23:20:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/81 "2011-01-04T07:21:24Z")
I want to revisit something I’ve posted before, and never got a satisfactory answer to. What makes GD different from IMHO? In the real world, debates are scored and judged, by an electorate for political debates, and by a panel of judges in cases of formal academic events. Neither of those occur in GD. So what GD threads amount to are IMHO threads that invite arguments. And what are the arguments? Well, they amount to opinions, because almost no GD questions are subject to factual answers, and if they are they’re probably in the wrong forum anyway. If folks have noticed, threads in IMHO get just as much argument as those in GD. IMO, the only difference between the two forums is in the mind of the OP, as to whether the subject is ‘important’ enough for GD. And this importance seems to be measured, in many cases, by a degree of emotional attachment to the beliefs being discussed. This of course leads to inflamed emotions as folks’ dearest held beliefs are being attacked or challenged. IOW, the very existence of a GD forum, without any mechanism of judging the quality and truth of the arguments, is designed for unresolvable train wrecks. And of course, the very idea of having a panel of SDMB debate judges would be the train wreck to end all train wrecks. IMO, the forum should be eliminated altogether unless it can be organized in a way that parallels RW debates. Honestly, I think the work involved in doing that is too much to ask of unpaid volunteer moderators. So, given that eliminating the forum won’t happen either – too many people think their opinions are too important to be mere opinions – I say making rule changes is not worth doing, as I can’t see any way that minor changes will result in any significant improvement. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/82 "2011-01-04T14:27:18Z")
Most of the suggestions here would seem to require much heavier policing by moderators. I don’t think GD is that broken. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/83 "2011-01-05T07:53:51Z")
Ok, I just looked through a thread that gave me one more idea – take “witnessing” threads out of GD and put them into IMHO. People who want to witness their truths do not want to debate them, and it’s 99% certain there’s no point to such a debate anyway. Witnessing is, from the POV of everyone by the witness, pretty much certainly an opinion. Why include such threads on a forum that encourages challenges? I really have no idea how much if at all this will improve GD (and I suspect it may fuck up IMHO to an equal degree), but IMHO is a more logical place for witness threads. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/84 "2011-01-06T12:05:34Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > I don’t understand the rhetorical strategy that requires belittling an assertion, or point of view in a debate. I certainly see belittling persons making such assertions, or holding such points of view as the logical equivalent to stating “I have no cogent argument against this assertion, but I hate it and all who do not despise it along with me.” That would hold for religious, political, and even scientific assertions. > > In other words, ad hominem argument is equivalent to accepting that the point addressed is intellectually unassailable, and can only be countered with emotional prejudice. More simply, “I lose, because I am a loser by nature.” > > When you can assign that judgement to someone who agrees with you, you know you have reached a level of intellecutal discourse worth of being read. Let us strive for that, and ignore those who fail to offer actual arguments. Really ignore. Fail to respond. Page Down. Don’t even notice. > > It could be done, but rules won’t make it happen. > > Tris I see no value in belittling a person, when it comes to an actual argument. The only purpose I see is the one the Pit was set up for: to get out frustrations. At least, I can’t see how belittling the person is any more effective than belittling an argument or point of view. The purpose of both is to persuade using ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/85 "2011-01-07T01:47:48Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I see no value in belittling a person, when it comes to an actual argument. The only purpose I see is the one the Pit was set up for: to get out frustrations. Yes – and one to settle frustrations against other posters. It’s always been that way. The Pit has ALWAYS been a place to flame and argue with others. If you can’t accept that, well, stay out. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/86 "2011-01-07T02:31:38Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Yes – and one to settle frustrations against other posters. It’s always been that way. > > The Pit has ALWAYS been a place to flame and argue with others. If you can’t accept that, well, stay out. Hon, how can you read a post and get the interpretation that wrong? Yes, the Pit is for that purpose, NOT GD. That’s the whole point. You often make fun of me for my posts, and yet you are posting something that makes no sense whatsoever with anything that has been said before. And I’m getting tired of you following me around. If you have a problem with me, why don’t you use the pit for its intended purpose, instead of talking behind my back all the time? ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/87 "2011-01-07T02:36:31Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And I’m getting tired of you following me around. If you have a problem with me, why don’t you use the pit for its intended purpose, instead of talking behind my back all the time? I think she is trying to give you a hint, and not behind your back. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/88 "2011-01-07T02:40:24Z")
First, I thought you WERE referring to the Pit. If not, I appologize. Second, I haven’t seen too much too much belittling in GD, as not as you think. IF you feel that way, you should start a Pitting. As for the rest, I’m not hijacking this thread. (There’s already one in the Pit – you’re free to join) Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have the Pens game to attend to. Lousy Habs. (I HATE those bastards!) ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/89 "2011-01-07T14:44:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here’s an idea I think would help foster better debate: don’t allow a mob to form by the people in a debate employing “we”/“us”. As in, “We don’t think that makes sense…” or “You haven’t convinced us…”. This tactic is often employed in debates where on side greatly outnumbers the other. Yes, I have been on the receiving end of this, and I’ve also seen it done to others. It adds zero to the debate, does not help the validity of anyone’s position (except by a fallacious Appeal to the Masses), and tends to close minds. There is really no upside to it, other than it allows the weak of mind or chickenshit posters who can’t cut it on their own over confident. On the downside, it tends to quash unpopular views. > > Yes, this would be an excellent improvement. WE\* think you have a point there. \*\*\*- “Jacks” \*\*\* 😉 - (by which I mean the royal we) ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/90 "2011-01-07T18:10:52Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If you have a problem with me, why don’t you use the pit for its intended purpose, instead of talking behind my back all the time? Because you run and hide every time someone directly confronts you. There’s a pit thread currently begging for you to come participate in. But you won’t - and we both know why. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/91 "2011-01-07T23:11:16Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Ok, I just looked through a thread that gave me one more idea – take “witnessing” threads out of GD and put them into IMHO. People who want to witness their truths do not want to debate them, and it’s 99% certain there’s no point to such a debate anyway. Witnessing is, from the POV of everyone by the witness, pretty much certainly an opinion. Why include such threads on a forum that encourages challenges? > > I really have no idea how much if at all this will improve GD (and I suspect it may fuck up IMHO to an equal degree), but IMHO is a more logical place for witness threads. So both atheists and theists should be in IMHO, IYHO? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/92 "2011-01-07T23:45:51Z")
Did you read anything that restricted my comments about witnessing to religion? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/93 "2011-01-14T23:14:50Z")
Perhaps just more enforcement of the don’t be a jerk clause? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/94 "2011-05-09T23:41:09Z")
There is a difference between saying, “N\*\*\*\*rs are s\*\*t,” and explaining why one agrees with The Bell Curve. I think that difference should be acknowledged by the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/95 "2011-05-10T03:38:11Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > There is a difference between saying, “N\*\*\*\*rs are s\*\*t,” and explaining why one agrees with The Bell Curve. I think that difference should be acknowledged by the moderators. We already acknowledge that difference: We ban posters for the first claim because they are obviously trolling while we tolerate the errors of posters who post the second claim, even though the dishonesty and lack of science in The Bell Curve has been well documented (and posted on this board) over the last fifteen years. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/96 "2011-05-10T03:59:44Z")
The difference is also acknowledged in that you’re allowed to post your views in the proper venue. What you’re not allowed to do - and this is not the first time you’ve received this instruction - is post about it in every thread where you can think of a way to work in a reference to your favorite book. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/97 "2011-05-10T14:53:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > We already acknowledge that difference: We ban posters for the first claim because they are obviously trolling while we tolerate the errors of posters who post the second claim, even though the dishonesty and lack of science in The Bell Curve has been well documented (and posted on this board) over the last fifteen years. If The Bell Curve is dishonest and wrong, why has the gap between white and black SAT scores grown form 1990 to 2009? > **[Fast Facts: SAT scores (171)](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171)** > > The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions (National Center for Education Statistics). Get answers on Early Childhood Education, Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education here. In 1990 white scores averaged 1031. Black scores averaged 846. The race gap was 185. In 2009 white scores averaged 1064. Black scores averaged 855. The race gap grew to 209. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/98 "2011-05-10T15:30:13Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > If The Bell Curve is dishonest and wrong, why has the gap between white and black SAT scores grown form 1990 to 2009? This is an example of why you continue to receive Mod notes in Great Debates. You persistently try to change every thread into a discussion of black inferiority. Whatever the reasons for discrepancies in test scores–even if they resulted from lower intelligence among blacks–The Bell Curve, itself, remains a flawed work that has had numerous serious errors pointed out by several universities and others, yet we continue to let you make these posts citing it when it is appropriate to the discussion, not, as in this thread, when it is actually off topic and you are simply pushing your agenda to denigrate blacks in every thread you enter. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/99 "2011-05-10T15:30:26Z")
**New Deal Democrat** , we are not going to do this here. This is a forum for discussion of the rules, not Great Debates. In any case this was explained to you at great length in a recent thread. If you’re interested, read that again. Now, do you have any questions or comments _about the moderation of your posts?_ ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/100 "2011-05-10T15:36:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **New Deal Democrat** , we are not going to do this here. This is a forum for discussion of the rules, not Great Debates. In any case this was explained to you at great length in a recent thread. If you’re interested, read that again. Now, do you have any questions or comments _about the moderation of your posts?_ Excuse me. I am discussing the Rules. I do not the constraints of political correctness should inhibit an open debate here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440.md?page=6)