I’m a believer myself, but I disagree with you here. I think if the discussion is about the existence of god, or for that matter anything supernatural, then it makes a certain amount of sense to start from the assumption that there isn’t, given that there is no objective data that there is. But that’s merely looking at it from a scientific standpoint.
My point was that it’s not invalid to have a discussion that either 1) starts with the assumption that god does exist, or 2) is about doctrinal points that don’t even necessarily require such an assumption made either way.
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.
Moderators can’t post in a contentious thread until they’ve read it through. I know you don’t do it on purpose, tomndebb, but it looks really, really bad when you give your opinion and then immediately close the thread.
No closing threads for being too long, or for the OP not giving evidence. The thread does not revolve around the OP, and I am of the opinion that a thread going around in circles is better than a closed thread all else being equal. (Example: I disagree with the decision to close the ZPG adoption thread.)
If a thread has more than x warnable posts, where x is a number that is agreed upon by the moderators when the rule is put into place, it gets closed immediately. This makes up for toxic threads that would have been closed except for 2.
Remove the rule about calling people liars. Accusations about lying in GD, from what I’ve seen, are almost always about the issue at hand.
I absolutely agree with others about insulting groups. GD is supposed to be a polite environment, and people should not be allowed to toss around things like:
like they’re facts. All of those are paraphrases of quotes I’ve seen from Der Trihs alone in GD. (If he objects, I can go and look for direct quotes, because I’m sure I can find them.)
Those are not polite in the least. They are quite clearly meant to aggravate, or even if the typer isn’t trying, he or she knows that those sorts of statements are extremely insulting. They should not be allowed. Also, evil is an insult. If you want to propose that all women who get abortions are sluts who can’t keep their legs crossed*:
a) Make it clear that it is your opinion
b) Frame it. Saying “I think that most women who are getting abortions are having unprotected sex while single, and that this is a problem.” is much more of a proposition, and much less of a value judgement, than “I think that all women who get abortions are sluts” is. In GD, propositions are good, and value judgments are bad. Take your value judgements to the Pit or MPSIMS where they belong.
c) Provide evidence. This last one is more of a guideline than a rule, obviously.
*I’m referring to SmartAlx here
In summary: 5) There should be a rule against strong, insulting value judgments of individuals and groups alike.
If someone is conversing with others naturally, no warning them for being off-topic. This should apply to all forums, BTW.
So don’t say anything unless you sprinkle it liberally with qualifiers, lest someone get upset? That might create a polite GD… or just a neutered, useless one.
At that point, I’d be asking for the standard boilerplate qualifier paragraph (i.e. “I acknowledge the above-stated opinion is based on a possibly nonrepresentative and biased sample”), abbreviate it to SBQP and just tack it onto the end of all my GD posts, or maybe just make it my signature so it gets appended without me having to bother to type it each time. I would be making a conscious effort to satisfy the absolute bare literal minimum of any such rule.
Some beliefs need insulting, and if the believers get hurt along the way, so be it. I’m okay with creating a new forum with stricter moderation because frankly, I’d kinda like to see and participate in more formal debates, but anyone who thinks they or others need to be protected from what goes on here can find another venue.
So? Let GD be all rough and tumble debate. I’m okay with the no direct personal insults rule, but a lot of common beliefs are ignorant and should be challenged. We have no need for pussyfooting. That only wastes time.
You’re right. Your opinion completely needs to be insulted and ignored. And, of course I don’t have to provide any reason why, because anyone with half a brain would see the problem.
I’m going to love going around insulting people because I believe their views have no value. I don’t think there will be anyone left on the board not insulted by me, because, guess what? Everybody has beliefs that other people think are absolutely inane. The whole point of a DEBATE is to help the other person see why you believe what you believe.
I’m also going to love it when everyone else practices this, and everybody will hate everyone else.
But my last sentence is still relevant!