# 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:** 6
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/101 "2011-05-10T15:42:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. How have I denigrated blacks in these threads? Are we alone? > **[Are we alone?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607500)** > > Are we alone? i think if a rational person looks at carl segans formual ud have to be an idiot not to agree that no we are not alone… and when i bring this up in casual conversation im the “crazy” one… are we so egotisical and dumb to think that we... Will the disparity of weath distribution destroy America? > **[Will the disparity of weath distribution destroy America?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=604331)** > > Although there have been rumblings from time to time about the widening gap between the rich and poor - along with a disappearing middle class - however a recent Vanity Fair article Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% spells it out very succinctly: ... Major Differences Between Modern-Day Judiasm and Modern-Day Islam? > **[Major Differences Between Modern-Day Judiasm and Modern-Day Islam?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607881)** > > It seems to me like these religions are very similar, and I’m looking to get some information on what differentiates the the two religions in terms of beliefs and practices. I understand that there is no monolithic “Islam” or “Judaism” but for the... Jehovah’s witnesses at the door > **[Re: Jehovah's witnesses at the door](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=605775)** > > Let me tell you what one man did when the Jehovah’s Witnesses or some such group came knocking at his door. He had just finished showering and was in his robe. So he opened the door, took his robe off, and said, “Come on in - we’re nudists!” ... How did other countries pass their (high) gas taxes? > **[How did other countries pass their (high) gas taxes?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607485)** > > I’m in the camp that thinks the gas taxes in the US are way too low. CAFE is a joke, and the current crop of cars that are popular here are way too big. I decided years ago that the best way to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” as every... I could continue, but you get my point. ---
**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, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/102 "2011-05-10T15:43:18Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Excuse me. I am discussing the Rules. No, you’re moving to open yet another discussion of SAT scores and the Bell Curve, and this is the wrong forum for that. **tomdebb** and I both responded to your earlier post. Your opinions are not being moderated because they’re “politically incorrect.” You’re allowed to present your opinions for debate, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve done so very recently. What you’re not allowed to do is post them in every thread you think can be connected to the topic of racial intelligence. Nevermind the content and the implications of your posts, the behavior itself is irritating because it prevents other people from having the discussion _they_ want to have. We’ve had rules against that kind of thing for a long time - it’s often referred to as being a one-trick pony - and those rules apply to you, too. ---
**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, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/103 "2011-05-10T15:44:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, you’re moving to open yet another discussion of SAT scores and the Bell Curve, and this is the wrong forum for that. **tomdebb** and I both responded to your earlier post. Your opinions are not being moderated because they’re “politically incorrect.” You’re allowed to present your opinions for debate, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve done so very recently. What you’re not allowed to do is post them in every thread you think can be connected to the topic of racial intelligence. Nevermind the content and the implications of your posts, the behavior itself is irritating because it prevents other people from having the discussion _they_ want to have. We’ve had rules against that kind of thing for a long time - it’s often referred to as being a **one-trick pony** - and those rules apply to you, too. Far from being a “one-trick pony” I can discuss any number of issues intelligently. ---
**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/104 "2011-05-10T15:48:34Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Far from being a “one-trick pony” I can discuss any number of issues intelligently. Then you should stop posting about racial intelligence so much and post about those more often. I know you don’t _only_ post racial intelligence, but you are in the habit of posting about it in topics where it’s not related to the subject at hand. That’s the problem. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/105 "2011-07-04T18:11:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m going to be primarily in read-only mode for this thread because I want to hear what people think, but we can’t read or moderate every post. We can only see what’s reported to us and what we choose to read on our own, so don’t take a lack of moderation on any post as an endorsement or a message - particularly any message other than ‘I don’t think this violates any rules.’ I have to admit that last night, and Marley personally knows this, I had a problem caused by this. I had complained; Marley acted but did not give me any feedback on it. This did lead to a feeling of persecution and ultimately a refusal to cite, including legitimate requests, because of frivolous obstructive behavior. I am talking about people who deliberately refuse to understand plain english and making up their own definitons just to impede the arguments of a view they disagree with, refusals to acknowledge some things in common knowledge designed to overwhelm a debater with citations of the frivolous, name-calling and negative comments on motivations for posting. (I am not saying I didn’t cross the line myself on some things, like over-reliance on common knowledge, but it started off in good faith, so please no one ridicule me on the basis of one ridiculous common knowledge claim, others were legit, and I am admitting and confessing.) My point is there would have been more restraint in my dealing with these problems than I wound up showing if I had had some feedback. Wouldn’t it be best to have some kind of general policy that if you complain about something, that the moderator affirms to you that something is happening? I know the moderators are volunteers and have lives, but especially in this case, as Marley was an active poster, and presumably seeing it for himself, I feel it would have been highly appropriate, even if his message was “I disagree and am not going to take any action.” I felt highly persecuted, legitimate in this feeling or not, and pretty disappointed in The Straight Dopers because my opinion on some subjects is unpopular. When I came here, I felt a certain relief that abuses in undisciplined forums go on and on and on such as in Yahoo News or CNN wouldn’t be happening. (CNN disciplines according to its bias, the only things getting removed are things the staff disagrees on, not abuses.) My relief was unfounded. I am sorry, again, Marley, for my part in it, and do not mean criticism of you in this post, but on a theory no one is perfect and conflict takes more than one person, especially in light of the fact you were my opponent. I should never have thrown common knowledge in your face. But I do want you and everyone else to understand that not giving me some feedback until after I had received a warning contributed to it. I think my good faith efforts to find a way to work a claim of common knowledge were underappreciated by you, but still strongly feel that there should be some agreeable way to handle common knowledge claims, and I still can never agree to _your opponents and your opponents alone decide the sky is not blue in fair weather._ (I admit I do not complain of anything as blatant as that) Such stuff is just ridiculous. From my point of view, your responses as my opponent did not take me seriously or my good faith. If I’d claimed that the civil rights events of the early sixties never happened, you know I’d have been ridiculed to death and no one would take my demands for a cite seriously. Nor should I have to cite rising divorce rates of the seventies or rising crime in the seventies, we all reasonably know this. Of course there should be exceptions–“I’m only ten and don’t know much history” is worth fetching a cite of common knowledge for, as is, “I am from Bangladesh and never had electricity or much schooling,” or possible other special pleadings. It simply is not fair for twenty posters to overwhelm another with demands for cites from everything from the bible is a historical document through whether political activists are actually active. Your demand for a cite was more specific than that, Marley, but not taking common knowledge seriously while I floundered in an overwhelming seas of people who didn’t like me for what I had to say, it never would have gotten to me throwing common knowledge in your face. I felt like you wouldn’t work with me, despite reasonable suggestions proposed by me and giving me some feedback other than as an opponent who admittedly does not respect my views, would have modified my behavior a great deal. This post isn’t about keeping a conflict going but is about preventing it from happeneing again, please do not take it harshly. If any of what I think is reasonable is thought to be unreasonable, I am certainly up to hearing about why. And I’d rather we keep our opinions or prejudices, if anybody has any, over the issue it happened in, completely out of it. For those who want to review this monstrosity of a ridiculous thread, here it is: > **[My mom, divorced 3 times, thinks gay marriage will "ruin" marriage.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=614515)** > > My mom’s a devout Catholic, so I guess this shouldn’t have been surprising to me, but somehow I’d had the vague idea that she differed from the Church on this topic. But anyway, this morning on Facebook (I don’t care if “this is why you don’t use... ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/106 "2011-07-04T18:27:32Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I had complained; Marley acted but did not give me any feedback on it. If you wanted feedback, all you had to do was ask. You reported a total of three posts in that thread. I moderated one of the posts you reported (and another that you didn’t report) because I felt they were out of line. I felt your second reported post was not actionable. You reported one more post shortly before I decided to close the thread. > [@](#): > > This did lead to a feeling of persecution and ultimately a refusal to cite, including legitimate requests, because of frivolous obstructive behavior. I’m sorry you felt persecuted, but for the most part, people were only asking you to support your own arguments. You can’t blame them for your own refusal to do so. You had ample opportunity - the thread continued for pages and pages. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t it be best to have some kind of general policy that if you complain about something, that the moderator affirms to you that something is happening? Sometimes we respond to posts to explain why we are or are not acting on a particular report, but it’s not always feasible to do that. Again, if you wanted me to explain why I wasn’t reprimanding a specific poster, you could have asked. And when you sent me a PM about my decisions, I did answer you. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/107 "2011-07-04T18:35:27Z")
> [@crazyjoe](#): > > So, you want to be able to post in every thread where religion is brought up, and just drop the turd that religion is an invalid argument for any given position? Exactly what do you think this will acoomplish? That religion is a huge factor in shaping people’s opinions is a given, and hijacking every thread to try to point out its lack of validity is only going to serve to make this place less pleasant. I agree CrazyJoe, and would like to point out the logical inconsistency of anything millions do being described as fringe. Indeed if religon is invalid there should be a better way of describing it than “fringe” when it is anything but fringe. If anything is a fringe belief, outside of a few european countries, it’s atheism. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/108 "2011-07-04T18:45:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If you wanted feedback, all you had to do was ask. You reported a total of three posts in that thread. I moderated one of the posts you reported (and another that you didn’t report) because I felt they were out of line. I felt your second reported post was not actionable. You reported one more post shortly before I decided to close the thread. > I’m sorry you felt persecuted, but for the most part, people were only asking you to support your own arguments. You can’t blame them for your own refusal to do so. You had ample opportunity - the thread continued for pages and pages. > Sometimes we respond to posts to explain why we are or are not acting on a particular report, but it’s not always feasible to do that. Again, if you wanted me to explain why I wasn’t reprimanding a specific poster, you could have asked. And when you sent me a PM about my decisions, I did answer you. Do you feel that any level of multiple people pestering someone for proof over the frivolous, (not claiming that it did in the thread the problem arose, but in general) is something to be concerned with as obstructionist or trolling, and what level would that be? Otherwise in this thread about the rules, someone acknowledged that not always are the proper citations easy or quick to find. Couldn’t even a “hold on everybody, one person can only do so much,” be appropriate? You didn’t directly respond to the question of what to do with common knowledge claims, so I suppose I will wait for other Dopers to comment on it and see what they think, if you’re not going to answer soon. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/109 "2011-07-04T18:48:19Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I agree CrazyJoe, and would like to point out the logical inconsistency of anything millions do being described as fringe. Indeed if religon is invalid there should be a better way of describing it than “fringe” when it is anything but fringe. If anything is a fringe belief, outside of a few european countries, it’s atheism. Atheism isn’t a belief, fringe or otherwise. In any case, your behavior in the closed thread was what got it closed. It would be nice if you learned a little something about how to argue rationally. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/110 "2011-07-04T18:52:38Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Do you feel that any level of multiple people pestering someone for proof over the frivolous, (not claiming that it did in the thread the problem arose, but in general) is something to be concerned with as obstructionist or trolling, and what level would that be? No, I don’t think that’s trolling. I don’t agree with your claims that posters were being “obstructionist.” I’ve tried to explain this to you, but even if you think your arguments are obviously true, that does not mean anyone else feels the same way. > [@](#): > > Couldn’t even a “hold on everybody, one person can only do so much,” be appropriate? That’s not usually something I would moderate. And further, some people (including me) asked you to cite the exact same argument for pages and pages. You could have defused this earlier on by just citing your claims. > [@](#): > > You didn’t directly respond to the question of what to do with common knowledge claims I talked about this in the thread. “It’s common knowledge” is not a legitimate response to a request for a citation. The argument was about whether or not your claims were _true_, not whether or not they were “common knowledge,” whatever that term means to you. Your proposal (that I ask a few people at random and report back) was really silly. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/111 "2011-07-04T18:55:58Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > ETA > This itself is a hijack and I’d rather leave it be. I suppose I have a bad habit of responding to one post before reading them all. Didn’t mean to participate in any hijack with the previous post about things being fringe. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/112 "2011-07-04T18:58:07Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > I would say no to more rules, because the same biased people would do just what happens now, leave their side alone with the excuse they didn’t see it, can’t read every post, and all that bull. But anything they opposed would be totally regulated and enforced even beyond the rules, like now happens. I don’t feel quite as alone anymore…🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/113 "2011-07-04T19:38:52Z")
The posts you’re responding to are about a year and a half old (note that **Silverstreak Wonder** was banned). Let’s stick to your current issues if possible. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/114 "2011-07-05T01:56:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If you wanted feedback, all you had to do was ask. You reported a total of three posts in that thread. I moderated one of the posts you reported (and another that you didn’t report) because I felt they were out of line. I felt your second reported post was not actionable. You reported one more post shortly before I decided to close the thread. > I’m sorry you felt persecuted, but for the most part, people were only asking you to support your own arguments. You can’t blame them for your own refusal to do so. You had ample opportunity - the thread continued for pages and pages. > Sometimes we respond to posts to explain why we are or are not acting on a particular report, but it’s not always feasible to do that. Again, if you wanted me to explain why I wasn’t reprimanding a specific poster, you could have asked. And when you sent me a PM about my decisions, I did answer you. I suppose I will learn more over time what to expect. I sort of figured since you were engaged in the debate you weren’t there for the pupose of governing it. Other boards do run like that, but of course that doesn’t mean SDMB has to. I will keep it in mind. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/115 "2011-07-05T02:07:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, I don’t think that’s trolling. I don’t agree with your claims that posters were being “obstructionist.” I’ve tried to explain this to you, but even if you think your arguments are obviously true, that does not mean anyone else feels the same way. > That’s not usually something I would moderate. And further, some people (including me) asked you to cite the exact same argument for pages and pages. You could have defused this earlier on by just citing your claims. > I talked about this in the thread. “It’s common knowledge” is not a legitimate response to a request for a citation. The argument was about whether or not your claims were _true_, not whether or not they were “common knowledge,” whatever that term means to you. Your proposal (that I ask a few people at random and report back) was really silly. For your last statement that common knowledge is not legitimate is incorrect. > **[PlanetDebate.com is for sale | HugeDomains](https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=planetdebate.com)** > > Get a new domain name for your startup. Quick and professional service. Seamless domain transfers. www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/douglasg/educ4315/…/ArtofDebating09.ppt the above link causes an automatic download of a file, for those who do not want it. [http://www.puretalkforum.com/f67/common-knowledge-6118.html](http://www.puretalkforum.com/f67/common-knowledge-6118.html) > **[How to Case](http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/casing.html)** ha ha and of course our monstrosity link came up too as perhaps someone mentioned I can provide more links if that is convincing, but if they are dismissed out of hand I won’t bother. Of course if you mean that The Straight Dope has banned a common knowledge claim although it is otherwise recognized in various debating forums or institutions, that is different. Is this a mutual concensus of the moderators here, that a common knowledge claim should be disregarded? If so, is there some discussion on it some where I could have a look at? Please remember I am not talking about whether last night’s use was proper or not. I admitted it was improper in part. This is about a change of the rules or clarification or exactly what the Doper community thinks about this issue. ---
**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:** [July 5, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/116 "2011-07-05T02:58:36Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Of course if you mean that The Straight Dope has banned a common knowledge claim although it is otherwise recognized in various debating forums or institutions, that is different. Is this a mutual concensus of the moderators here, that a common knowledge claim should be disregarded? > > If so, is there some discussion on it some where I could have a look at? I don’t think this has anything to do with the rules. It’s not that the “Straight Dope has banned a common knowledge claim,” it’s that the kind of people who tend to participate in discussions on this board tend not to accept “common knowledge” as a valid form of support for an argument. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/117 "2011-07-05T03:29:20Z")
Yeah, if you’re asking what “the Doper community” thinks about claims that are supported by “common knowledge,” I’m going to have to say that generally such claims are regarded as baseless unless you can come up with something better to support it than “oh, it’s common knowledge.” Also, from your link: > [@](#): > > Ask yourself what the opposition needs to know in order to debate the case. If it’s common knowledge, you’re fine. If it’s something frequently discussed in the news, you’re fine. If it’s something they should have learned in high school, you’re fine. If it’s none of the above, but you can tell them everything additional they need to know in under 30 seconds, you’re fine The information you were trying to claim as “common knowledge” in the thread being discussed fell under “none of the above.” Something like “apples are red” or “Obama is a Democrat” is common knowledge. A highly questionable claim about the motivation behind behavior of certain groups of people is not common knowledge. And from one of the other links: > [@](#): > > Fourth, make your own arguments against claims made by the other team. If a team points out that Wikileaks threatens US national security, respond by pointing out what you know. Argue that Wikileaks is only a website and that the US has the largest economy and military in the world. Again, you are basically relying on what most people already know, so your “proof” is “common knowledge.” Well, this is ridiculous. It’s not difficult in the slightest to prove that the US has the largest economy and military in the world (if it does; I’m not bothering to check for the purposes of this post) – simply find a cite for it and add that to your post and then you don’t have to waste a lot of time and energy with someone who doesn’t believe your claim. Generally speaking, if you believe something is “common knowledge” you can certainly mention it without citing it when you first mention it in the discussion, but if someone challenges your claim, then it’s clearly not “common knowledge” for that person and you will need to now support your claim with actual evidence. And if it is really a true claim, there should be evidence for it, whether it is “common knowledge” or not. I can easily find evidence to support my claim that apples are red; that Obama is a Democrat; etc. Also, I didn’t want to derail the other thread with this, but since we’re here, I’ll tell you that trying to educate posters in Great Debates about debate tactics and techniques is like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. Constantly name-dropping debate techniques and logical fallacies makes you sound like you are trying more to be some kind of high-school debate team moderator than trying to have a serious discussion. I’m really not trying to harsh out on you. Maybe you don’t realize how you are coming across. I hope you can pull it together, because GD and the SDMB in general can be a lot of fun. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/118 "2011-07-05T03:31:46Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I don’t think this has anything to do with the rules. It’s not that the “Straight Dope has banned a common knowledge claim,” it’s that the kind of people who tend to participate in discussions on this board tend not to accept “common knowledge” as a valid form of support for an argument. Which is another way of saying that you HAVE accepted “Prove the sky is blue” “Define Blue” types of obstruction, isn’t it? ---
**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:** [July 5, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/119 "2011-07-05T03:37:14Z")
If those questions are relevant to your argument I suspect that it’s not difficult to find credible sources for them. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440/120 "2011-07-05T03:38:07Z")
> [@David42](#): > > For your last statement that common knowledge is not legitimate is incorrect. > > Of course if you mean that The Straight Dope has banned a common knowledge claim although it is otherwise recognized in various debating forums or institutions, that is different. Is this a mutual concensus of the moderators here, that a common knowledge claim should be disregarded? Something is common knowledge by that standard when it is such a fundamental truth that it’s like asking for a cite to prove ‘the sun is hot’. I have been asked for cites in situations almost that ridiculous and insisted that it is “common knowledge” but still always would provide at least 1 cite if someone insisted. Anything that is really acceptable as common knowledge would only be so because it is a snap to produce a thousand cites that demonstrate it is universally accepted as being true under the light of scientific analysis, not just popular opinion. If you have to argue that something is common knowledge for 5 pages and can’t produce 1 cite that is kind of like arguing that someone is world famous even though nobody has ever heard of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-rule-changes-would-you-propose-to-strengthen-improve-gd/526440.md?page=7)