Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Rule Update

  1. #1
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Rule Update

    This update has been in the pipe for a while.

    ODN has, in the past, had occasional posters who have come to antagonize conflict rather than engage in debate. That clearly isn't in line with why we come to ODN. As such we've updated the trolling section of the rules to read:


    "Trolling - Posting an offensive or contentious message with the intent of provoking flames or causing annoyance to the community is considered trolling. An example would be the repeated and unnecessary denigration of another group of members (e.g. theists/liberals) in your posts, with the aim of upsetting or antagonizing them. Another example would be posts explicitly intended to mock, denigrate, or otherwise belittle a given position without offering an appropriate opposing position. Posts or threads that have no obvious purpose except to denigrate others or their beliefs, or to encourage others to do so, will be considered trolling and punished appropriately as such.

    This includes being disrespectful of members by way of the rep system, pm's, shoutbox or even posts, about threads that another member has not responded to. If a member wants another member to address a thread or specific post in a thread, then a respectful pm ought to be sent to that member asking if they will. They are not required to do so by any means, and any attacks on them because they haven't, is considered trolling.

    Trolls will be punished severely."

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules

    Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Or feel free to start a thread in the "Ask the Staff" Forum.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    So I would assume that discussion of the novel The Gadfly would outlawed as well?

    Socrates would have resigned in protest to such restrictions on speech.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    HCabert

    Our aim is to have a place where you can debate about issues, but where that debate is not filled with personal acrimony. When you publish a book, you can denigrate anyone you like. There is no need to maintain a community of peaceful debaters. The rule is to keep things civil, not to suppress the range of argument you can make.

    So you can argue that conservatives hold to an immoral view or that Islam is irrational. But you must do so with a certain level of dispassion and tact, not simply make broad proclamations about how X group is a bunch of drooling idiots.

    Basically if your being a dick, we will take action to have you stop or leave. If you are being polite you can argue just about any topic you like.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. Likes Joe Friday liked this post
  5. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    So I would assume that discussion of the novel The Gadfly would outlawed as well?
    No, why would it be? A discussion is discussion, insults or mockery for the sole purpose of causing irritation, annoyance, or frustration to another is what the rule is about. Read carefully to the posts you respond to. There is absolutely nothing in that rule (post) that one could reason that "discussions of certain topics are off-limits."

    Socrates would have resigned in protest to such restrictions on speech.
    No he wouldn't have. He'd have agreed that such rhetoric is meaningless. Socrates (as we know through Plato) was about truth discovery and reason...not about insults for the pure motivation of self-gratification and harm of others. You need to brush up on your classical philosophy it would seem.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    So I would assume that discussion of the novel The Gadfly would outlawed as well?

    Socrates would have resigned in protest to such restrictions on speech.
    This is really an absurd set of statements. You should try to be more dispassionate about things. This seems more like whining than trying to engage in a meaningful dialogue about your disagreement over a policy change.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  7. #6
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Socrates was the original gadfly. He spoke with the express intent of telling the truth in order to irritate Athens into enlightenment. Socrates is world's greatest martyr for free speech.

    It is illegal to be gadfly on this site.

  8. #7
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Socrates was the original gadfly. He spoke with the express intent of telling the truth in order to irritate Athens into enlightenment. Socrates is world's greatest martyr for free speech.

    It is illegal to be gadfly on this site.
    No, Socrates spoke to motivate (by irritation occasionally) a change in attitude and action. He did not speak solely to "mock, denigrate, or otherwise belittle a given position without offering an appropriate opposing position." Socrates had an opposing position that he was advocating through a non-confrontational method. This rule applies to those who have no such position or are not advocating it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #8
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Socrates was the original gadfly. He spoke with the express intent of telling the truth in order to irritate Athens into enlightenment. Socrates is world's greatest martyr for free speech.

    It is illegal to be gadfly on this site.
    And how did he irritate them? Was it by flaming and insults? No. It was by questioning the established norm. He kept asking and asking asking to force the Greeks to question why it is they just accept the things they do. Usually, he'd receive a general response such as "Because it is just!" or "Because it's beautiful.'" or "Because it's good!." He was a "pest" not in the sense that he continually harassed, mocked, and insulted people, but rather he questioned "What is just?" "What is beauty?" What is good?"

    As Prof. W.K.C. Guthrie and Prof. Gregory Vlastos (both of whom are Classical Greek Philosophy Scholars) explain, philosophy is not designed to reach an outcome so much as it is a way of life pondering such abstractions as Truth and Beauty, so that the interlocutors were living the fully human life while they were engaged in the dialogue, regardless where the dialogue ultimately took them. Philosophy is not about conclusions. In this sense, Socrates taught more by example than by pronouncement (e.g. Guthrie, 1969; Vlastos, 1995)

    Your way, which you are defending (by virtue of objecting to our rule which focuses on preventing others from hurling insults and posts intended on nothing more than causing "harm" in the Platonic sense) is nothing more than pure insulting others, flaming, breaking rules, showing complete disrespect for everyone around you, intending to cause harm to others...does not "enlighten" anyone. Socrates would protest that you would use his name to justify your preferred behavior.

    Socrates didn't go around bullying people, making fun of people, which is what the rule addresses...he challenged their ideas by showing that they are accepting "what is" merely because it's been that way since people can remember. As I said, you need to brush up on your classical philosophy.

    As to your idea that it is ok and even a good thing to bully people, cause annoyance and frustration purely for your own entertainment, etc... (which is what the rule addresses) and that somehow, this does not create a barrier between two interlocutors and instead "enlightens" people...and/or if it is the case that you simply do not know how to use reason, rationally discuss issues, employ the Socratic Method, if that is what you mean, then yes, that is "illegal" on this site. Although, "illegal" is the wrong term, it is not against the law. It is against our rules. You are a visitor in our "home." You either abide by those rules and enjoy what there is to be offered or you leave (either voluntarily or you can be shown the virtual door).

    It's really a simple concept HC...and it is usually pretty telling when someone gets confused on the issue because it shows their intent. That simple concept that the rule is enforcing is "Attack the argument, not the argument maker."

    If that is too confusing, or if you believe that you should be allowed to cause "harm" to others, then this community is not for you and I suggest finding a community where disrespect, irrationality, bad reasoning, and insults are allowed. You'll not find them to be virtues in this community. ODN doesn't cater to everyone, just those with a moderate sense of intellectual aptitude, curiosity and belief that we ought to respect those we engage in conversations with.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; March 25th, 2013 at 07:34 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. Thanks eye4magic, Lukecash12, Talthas, Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes libre liked this post
  11. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    And how did he irritate them? Was it by flaming and insults? No. It was by questioning the established norm. He kept asking and asking asking to force the Greeks to question why it is they just accept the things they do. Usually, he'd receive a general response such as "Because it is just!" or "Because it's beautiful.'" or "Because it's good!." He was a "pest" not in the sense that he continually harassed, mocked, and insulted people, but rather he questioned "What is just?" "What is beauty?" What is good?"

    As Prof. W.K.C. Guthrie and Prof. Gregory Vlastos (both of whom are Classical Greek Philosophy Scholars) explain, philosophy is not designed to reach an outcome so much as it is a way of life pondering such abstractions as Truth and Beauty, so that the interlocutors were living the fully human life while they were engaged in the dialogue, regardless where the dialogue ultimately took them. Philosophy is not about conclusions. In this sense, Socrates taught more by example than by pronouncement (e.g. Guthrie, 1969; Vlastos, 1995)

    Your way, that you are defending (by virtue of objecting to our rule which focuses on preventing others from hurling insults and posts intended on nothing more than causing "harm" (in the Platonic sense) which is nothing more than pure insults, flaming, breaking rules, complete disrespect for everyone around you, intent to cause harm to others...does not "enlighten" anyone. Socrates would protest that you would use his name to justify your preferred behavior.

    Socrates didn't go around bullying people, making fun of people, which is what the rule addresses...he challenged their ideas by showing that they are accepting "what is" merely because it's been that way since people can remember. As I said, you need to brush up on your classical philosophy.

    As to your idea that it is ok and even a good thing to bully people, cause annoyance and frustration purely for your own entertainment, etc... (which is what the rule addresses) and that somehow, this does not create a barrier between two interlocutors and instead "enlightens" people...and/or if it is the case that you simply do not know how to use reason, rationally discuss issues, employ the Socratic Method, if that is what you mean, then yes, that is "illegal" on this site. Although, "illegal" is the wrong term, it is not against the law. It is against our rules. You are a visitor in our "home." You either abide by those rules and enjoy what there is to be offered or you leave (either voluntarily or you can be shown the virtual door).

    It's really a simple concept HC...and it is usually pretty telling when someone gets confused on the issue because it shows their intent. That simple concept that the rule is enforcing is "Attack the argument, not the argument maker."

    If that is too confusing, or if you believe that you should be allowed to cause "harm" to others, then this community is not for you and I suggest finding a community where disrespect, irrationality, bad reasoning, and insults are allowed. You'll not find them to be virtues in this community. ODN doesn't cater to everyone, just those with a moderate sense of intellectual aptitude, curiosity and belief that we ought to respect those we engage in conversations with.

    Bazinga.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  12. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Just a quick question so as to better understand. By the definition above:

    An example would be the repeated and unnecessary denigration of another group of members (e.g. theists/liberals) in your posts, with the aim of upsetting or antagonizing them.
    How is this not within that definition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Atheism is a disease of the mind caused by eating underdone philosophy - Austin O'Malley, Keystones of Thought

  13. #11
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    That's a good point Joe Friday. We've never really extended the application to our signatures, and instead, have always enforced the "no links to other websites" and/or "no quoting other members" policy. With this new policy, a consideration of the applicability of signatures is probably in order.

    However, on a personal note, in case you are wondering...I change my sig every month or so. Usually, it's about general philosophy, rarely ever religion. The reason why this particular quote was used was because it was a response to about 2-3 atheists who used similar signatures.

    So if it is the case, that this rule is now applicable to signatures, it must apply to all. I don't know how atheists will feel about that considering that we have more atheists who use their signatures as such, than any other group. And the catalyst for this rule amendment were the posts that atheists post in the off-topic forum, specifically calling out theistic beliefs with mocking images and name calling (before, we applied trolling/flaming to debate posts, now, we are adding the principle to image threads and off-topic threads).

    In addition, we should also look at the new policy as it pertains to the shoutbox.

    However, if you notice, we specifically ad "aim of..." that is, we must take "intent" into account. It could easily be argued that the quote in my sig isn't an intent to upset or attack, but rather point out a particular philosophical position.

    In any event, it is how policies get changed, through discussions like this.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; March 26th, 2013 at 02:23 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #12
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    The chatbox has generally been considered the wild west here. As long as someone does not excessively abuse that area we have left it alone. I think it is a good outlet for more unrestricted bantor.

    In the past we generally had that outlet within the Regulars forum, but I'm not sure threads always lend themselves to that particular form of expression.


    Signatures are an interesting question as well. I think we should likewise leave those alone. It would be hard to apply a rule demanding that a position be made from a one line signature. There is a mismatch here between the medium and the intent.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #13
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    And how did he irritate them? Was it by flaming and insults? No. It was by questioning the established norm. He kept asking and asking asking to force the Greeks to question why it is they just accept the things they do. Usually, he'd receive a general response such as "Because it is just!" or "Because it's beautiful.'" or "Because it's good!." He was a "pest" not in the sense that he continually harassed, mocked, and insulted people, but rather he questioned "What is just?" "What is beauty?" What is good?"

    As Prof. W.K.C. Guthrie and Prof. Gregory Vlastos (both of whom are Classical Greek Philosophy Scholars) explain, philosophy is not designed to reach an outcome so much as it is a way of life pondering such abstractions as Truth and Beauty, so that the interlocutors were living the fully human life while they were engaged in the dialogue, regardless where the dialogue ultimately took them. Philosophy is not about conclusions. In this sense, Socrates taught more by example than by pronouncement (e.g. Guthrie, 1969; Vlastos, 1995)

    Your way, which you are defending (by virtue of objecting to our rule which focuses on preventing others from hurling insults and posts intended on nothing more than causing "harm" in the Platonic sense) is nothing more than pure insulting others, flaming, breaking rules, showing complete disrespect for everyone around you, intending to cause harm to others...does not "enlighten" anyone. Socrates would protest that you would use his name to justify your preferred behavior.

    Socrates didn't go around bullying people, making fun of people, which is what the rule addresses...he challenged their ideas by showing that they are accepting "what is" merely because it's been that way since people can remember. As I said, you need to brush up on your classical philosophy.

    As to your idea that it is ok and even a good thing to bully people, cause annoyance and frustration purely for your own entertainment, etc... (which is what the rule addresses) and that somehow, this does not create a barrier between two interlocutors and instead "enlightens" people...and/or if it is the case that you simply do not know how to use reason, rationally discuss issues, employ the Socratic Method, if that is what you mean, then yes, that is "illegal" on this site. Although, "illegal" is the wrong term, it is not against the law. It is against our rules. You are a visitor in our "home." You either abide by those rules and enjoy what there is to be offered or you leave (either voluntarily or you can be shown the virtual door).

    It's really a simple concept HC...and it is usually pretty telling when someone gets confused on the issue because it shows their intent. That simple concept that the rule is enforcing is "Attack the argument, not the argument maker."

    If that is too confusing, or if you believe that you should be allowed to cause "harm" to others, then this community is not for you and I suggest finding a community where disrespect, irrationality, bad reasoning, and insults are allowed. You'll not find them to be virtues in this community. ODN doesn't cater to everyone, just those with a moderate sense of intellectual aptitude, curiosity and belief that we ought to respect those we engage in conversations with.
    just like this post of yours:
    It's the most retarded philosophy I've seen posited in the history of ODN I think.
    Would that post not fall under the definition of "trolling"?

    I was banned for a month for responding to this post.

    Is my philosophy "retarded"? Or not?

  16. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    just like this post of yours:

    Would that post not fall under the definition of "trolling"?

    I was banned for a month for responding to this post.

    Is my philosophy "retarded"? Or not?
    Apok is the owner of ODN, as such, he can do whatever the hell he wants. You aren't going to win this argument, best to just let it go and try to engage in meaningful debate within the context of the new rules, otherwise, your time here will be cut short. Though your philosophies are.....well frankly, they are absurd, I rather enjoy debating you to some extent. I wouldnt want to see you go.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    just like this post of yours:

    Would that post not fall under the definition of "trolling"?
    Nope.

    It is 1 statement in a sea of arguments. That statement may have been better worded, but it is by no means trolling considering 1) the argument is being addressed in surrounding text, 2) the argument is being addressed in that specific statement, 3) you are not being personally attacked, 4) the post itself contains several arguments and not just a single statement such as "you are a dumbass" or a graphic that is intended to insult members of the community or the groups they belong to.

    I was banned for a month for responding to this post.
    No you were not. You received 8 infraction points because of the personal insults (name calling, "dumbass," "moron," and to a staff member no less (which carries with it, a heavy price...see the very last rule on our rules page).

    Previously, you received 3 infraction points for continuing to spam despite receiving an earlier infraction for the offense, and a warning. It was the accumulation of 10+ infraction points for bad behavior that resulted in your 30 days suspension. You and ODN needed a break from your disrespect of members and your disregard for community rules.


    Is my philosophy "retarded"? Or not?
    Which one? The one in the other thread where I addressed how your philosophy was that "it is better to let women be raped, children be molested and murdered, people be butchered, homes destroyed, nations crumble, police should not physically prevent any criminal from doing any harm and instead, should quit their jobs."

    Absolutely. And I explained this in the other thread. If you'd like to continue that discussion, please do so in the other thread. Also, if you'd like to discuss the infraction or suspension, please do so in the appropriate place...it does not belong in an announcement or debate thread. Any and all future posts regarding your personal suspension and your personal philosophies will be considered spam and failure to regard staff instructions. This thread is about the rule update, which seeks to protect the community from those who wish to do nothing but cause harm (in the Platonic sense which is explained in a previous post) to them.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    That's a good point Joe Friday. We've never really extended the application to our signatures, and instead, have always enforced the "no links to other websites" and/or "no quoting other members" policy. With this new policy, a consideration of the applicability of signatures is probably in order.

    However, on a personal note, in case you are wondering...I change my sig every month or so. Usually, it's about general philosophy, rarely ever religion. The reason why this particular quote was used was because it was a response to about 2-3 atheists who used similar signatures.

    So if it is the case, that this rule is now applicable to signatures, it must apply to all. I don't know how atheists will feel about that considering that we have more atheists who use their signatures as such, than any other group. And the catalyst for this rule amendment were the posts that atheists post in the off-topic forum, specifically calling out theistic beliefs with mocking images and name calling (before, we applied trolling/flaming to debate posts, now, we are adding the principle to image threads and off-topic threads).

    In addition, we should also look at the new policy as it pertains to the shoutbox.

    However, if you notice, we specifically ad "aim of..." that is, we must take "intent" into account. It could easily be argued that the quote in my sig isn't an intent to upset or attack, but rather point out a particular philosophical position.

    In any event, it is how policies get changed, through discussions like this.
    I understand your point. Although, I do not see how calling any point of view a "disease" can NOT have the intent of denigrating. I think, though, from the tone of your post that it was a gentle tease and not a vindictive assault. I can accept that reasoning.

    It is wrong, evil and cowardly to ever allow the topic of conversation to be more important than the person you are conversing with. Anyone who does not see this has completely missed the point of conversation in the first place. I have seen hockey players, fighters, football players and rugby players all but go to war (within the rules) and then have a beer and enjoy one another's company afterwards. They know better than to take the adversarial nature of their contests seriously. They expect their opponent to give their all.

    Here we are, none of us exhausted or bleeding from our matches, each safe from injury and physical pain, so I would hope that we would also have the maturity to not take our contests personally. Your rules are commendable. There is no place in intelligent society for ego-building at the expense of another.

  19. #17
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Friday View Post
    I understand your point. Although, I do not see how calling any point of view a "disease" can NOT have the intent of denigrating. I think, though, from the tone of your post that it was a gentle tease and not a vindictive assault. I can accept that reasoning.

    It is wrong, evil and cowardly to ever allow the topic of conversation to be more important than the person you are conversing with. Anyone who does not see this has completely missed the point of conversation in the first place. I have seen hockey players, fighters, football players and rugby players all but go to war (within the rules) and then have a beer and enjoy one another's company afterwards. They know better than to take the adversarial nature of their contests seriously. They expect their opponent to give their all.

    Here we are, none of us exhausted or bleeding from our matches, each safe from injury and physical pain, so I would hope that we would also have the maturity to not take our contests personally. Your rules are commendable. There is no place in intelligent society for ego-building at the expense of another.
    Hi, Joe, and thanks for adding to the discussion of our rules. You've brought up things that we hadn't really considered as staff in such detail before, and that's always a healthy thing. You should understand a little bit about context, though, to get a little better idea about the rule change we have made and why it was put in place.

    During my time at ODN, we have had several rashes of various atheists posting intentionally provocative topics on the religion board. While none of them technically violated the rules, they were clearly intended to outrage and offend religious types by demonstrating what they felt was a certain absurdity of religious belief. Largely, these were tolerated, even if not always with good grace, because they usually put forward some sort of argument that directly addressed a belief and why they thought that belief was wrong. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine as long as there's actually an argument behind it. It doesn't even have to be a particularly good argument as long as it's an attempt to actually make a cogent point that does something besides heap ridicule and disgust upon certain people without actually forwarding a point that can be argued. Bad argumentation can be dealt with by superior argumentation, and that ends the discussion, usually... or sometimes, it actually sparks a good and interesting debate. We've had both happen from intentionally provocative posts and OP before. The problem comes when there is no room left for discussion because the structure of the OP makes no argument to be contested. At that point, there is no possibility of constructive exchange of ideas, and so the purpose of debate is lost.

    Recently, though, there have been some threads and posts started with no reason except to explicitly insult certain beliefs without actually stating an argument, and to encourage others to post their own insulting statements and opinions on the same thread, also without any critical discourse or attempt to engage the people who held those beliefs except to ridicule them. That sort of behavior is not welcome at ODN and never will be. Since it did not explicitly violate the rules regarding trolling, as it did not call out a specific member, the rule was changed to reflect what we all agreed had been an oversight in the wording of that rule. Since that sort of post clearly violates the spirit of what we are trying to do here at ODN, which is promote intelligent and constructive discourse between people with different ideas, the existing rules regarding trolling needed to be expanded to cover what was clearly an attempt to circumvent them.

    Signatures and the chat box have typically been viewed with a degree of leniency, since signatures are more a personal statement than an attempt to incite others to engage in the blind ridicule of other beliefs and ideas, and the chat box is not as seriously policed. However, when people get out of hand either by singling specific people out - chat box, signature, or otherwise - we do get involved. Other situations are handled on a case-by-case basis as needed, as we haven't really had too many people abuse the signature system to violate the rules very often. If that changes in the future, further rules changes may need to be considered at that time. However, for the time being, we have not yet put forward such proposals.

    I hope this helps shed some light on the subject.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  20. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
    Likes Apokalupsis, HCabret, Squatch347 liked this post
  21. #18
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Friday View Post
    I understand your point. Although, I do not see how calling any point of view a "disease" can NOT have the intent of denigrating. I think, though, from the tone of your post that it was a gentle tease and not a vindictive assault. I can accept that reasoning.

    It is wrong, evil and cowardly to ever allow the topic of conversation to be more important than the person you are conversing with. Anyone who does not see this has completely missed the point of conversation in the first place. I have seen hockey players, fighters, football players and rugby players all but go to war (within the rules) and then have a beer and enjoy one another's company afterwards. They know better than to take the adversarial nature of their contests seriously. They expect their opponent to give their all.

    Here we are, none of us exhausted or bleeding from our matches, each safe from injury and physical pain, so I would hope that we would also have the maturity to not take our contests personally. Your rules are commendable. There is no place in intelligent society for ego-building at the expense of another.
    I agree with you, and you appear to understand our community philosophy here. We wanted a community where the focus was the argument, not the argument maker. It's both frustrating and saddening, that many people either do not agree or simply refuse to value this principle. To many, winning an argument through any means necessary is what ought to done. The problem is, "win" takes on different meanings, and to someone who wishes to troll, mock, belittle, offer personal attacks, "winning" merely means beating the other person to the ground (linguistically and emotionally). This is what Socrates (and Plato) call "sophistry." A meaningless exercise of self-ego stroking.

    This is not to say we have a perfect community in this regard. We all struggle from time to time, and let our emotions get the better of us. But as I see it, there are those who know better and try their best to refrain from doing so, and instead, focus on the argument (instead of its author), and those who either willingly or ignorantly attack the author (instead of the argument). It's this latter group we either correct or forcibly remove from the community.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  22. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Hmmm... Our friend conveniently stopped sharing his alternative views of ODN's rules. How quaint. But I guess it's not very quaint, considering Hcabret's trends in posting so far. I really like Talthas' rationale behind this rule amendment and am glad to see it, and I especially appreciate how clearly it has been worded.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  23. #20
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rule Update

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    Hmmm... Our friend conveniently stopped sharing his alternative views of ODN's rules. How quaint.
    No, he recently posted...but that post was (once again) in violation of our rules (re: attempting to discuss his personal infractions outside of a pm, Site Feedback or Ask the Staff forum)...despite me even explaining this in the previous post.

    Regardless, this announcement thread should not be taken off-course through such behavior. All future posts concerning an individual's infraction, suspension, behavior, etc... will be promptly removed without notice. Please stay on topic.

    It's a good rule, one that unfortunately is necessary to become official language in our rules page, but one that will make it clear what is expected and what we consider to be unacceptable.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  24. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
 

 

Similar Threads

  1. "Homegrown" Player Rule - A ridiculous rule
    By thegreenape in forum General Debate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2010, 10:38 AM
  2. Blackwater Update.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 20th, 2007, 08:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •