The discussion of the new WCT rules has raised the issue of the rather blurry line between that forum and Debate. And this discussion coincided with a a trend of only-vaguely-debatable threads appearing in Debate, which a few of us talked about in my helpdesk. My concern, in a nutshell, is that Debate has wandered just a bit too far from its original purpose. So to tighten things up a bit, I'd like to propose for discussion a couple of new rules.
(Revised) The debate topic rules. In order to debate, you first need an issue with two (or more) sides. So when you start a new thread in this forum, you should write it carefully with this goal in mind.
Zero-sided topics. In the first post of any Debate thread, it should be immediately obvious to readers what topic they're being asked to take a position on. This doesn't have to be a formal, Debate-Club-style proposition; we're an informal forum, and it's okay to pose a topic informally. But if there is no clear topic for debate in your original post, you may be warned or infracted. This rule applies regardless of whether a debate starts further into the thread.
One-sided topics. If everybody agrees on something, there is no debate. If a thread has proceeded for a reasonable amount of time but posters have not taken two or more positions on the topic, the thread may be closed. In general, this is a no-foul rule: you won't earn an infraction for starting a topic that turns out to be one-sided. But if the topic is deemed obnoxious or malicious, you might run afoul of the rules against spamming or trolling.
On- and off-topic posts. Again, this is an informal debate forum. Therefore, it is acceptable for the conversation in a thread to evolve, as discussion of the original topic brings up new topics. However, this is not an excuse to go off on a tangential topic, especially not if that topic is large and worthy of a thread of its own. For example, if someone mentions God in a thread on abortion, that is not an invitation to start a debate about God's existence in that thread. Such posts will be considered off-topic.
The debate topic rules. In order to debate, you first need an issue with two sides. So when you start a new thread in this forum, you should write it carefully with this in mind.
Zero-sided topics. In the first post of any Debate thread, it should be immediately obvious what topic debaters are supposed to take a position on in their responses. This can be a two-sided topic, in the manner of a formal debate - for example, "Should speed limits should be abolished on highways, or not?" But as we're a rather casual forum, formality is not required, and the topic can be more open if you wish - for example, "What is the best system of government?" It doesn't need to be explicitly in the form of a question, either. But if it is not obvious in your original post, you may be warned or infracted. This rule applies regardless of whether a debate starts further into the thread.
One-sided topics. If everybody agrees on something, there is no debate. If a thread has proceeded for a reasonable amount of time but posters have not taken two or more positions on the topic, the thread may be closed. In general, this is a no-foul rule: you won't earn an infraction for starting a topic that turns out to be one-sided. However, if the topic is foreseeably one-sided - for example, "Should you be allowed to drink and drive?" - then you can be infracted.
On- and off-topic posts. Again, this is a casual debate forum. Therefore, it is acceptable for the conversation in a thread to evolve, as discussion of the original topic brings up new topics. However, this is not an excuse to go off on a tangential topic, especially not if that topic is large and worthy of a thread of its own. For example, if someone mentions God in a thread on abortion, that is not an invitation to start a debate about God's existence in that thread. Such posts will be considered off-topic.
(Updated) The stalled debate rule. Sometimes a debate turns into a grind, where both sides just retread the same ground over and over again. If a discussion has gone on for many posts without any appreciable progress, a moderator may step in to declare the debate stalled, bringing it to a peaceful end.
Final posts. Once a debate is declared stalled, each current participant in that debate may write one post, and no more, to set out their final thoughts. All final posts must be made within two days of the stall declaration. Edits to the post should be kept to actual editing, not major new additions, and are on the same two-day limit. A final post is not an excuse to flame, and in fact will be held to a stricter standard than normal as far as confrontational behavior (snark, sarcasm, etc.) is concerned: you're supposed to be stepping out of a confrontation.
End of conversation. After the final posts, the conversation is over. Please don't respond to posts from the stalled debate or otherwise attempt to continue it, no matter what thread you're posting in, and no matter whether you were a participant in the debate or not. But do note that this is the end of a conversation, not the end of a topic. Non-participants in the stall are welcome to start a fresh conversation on the topic at any time. And the participants in the stall can weigh in on the topic again, after a cooling-down period of one week from the stall declaration. (They should, however, take extra care to avoid another stall.)
No foul. Simply being involved in a stalled debate is not grounds for infraction. In fact, we strongly encourage you use the report button when you're in a debate that may be stalling. A stalled debate most commonly occurs when neither debater can let the other get in the last word without losing face, and the primary purpose of this rule is to allow both sides a graceful exit from this situation. Be aware, however, that posters can still be infracted for other forms of misbehavior. In particular, stonewalling (as described in the spam rules) is often involved in a stall.
The stalled debate rule. Sometimes a debate turns into a grind, where both sides just retread the same ground over and over again. If a discussion has gone on for many posts without any appreciable progress, a moderator may step in to declare the debate stalled. Once a stall has been declared, each participant may write one more post on the topic to get in their final thoughts, then the matter is considered settled. This is another no-foul rule: you won't be infracted for participating in a debate that stalls. However, continuing the debate after the final posts will of course earn an infraction. (This includes continuing the discussion in a different thread.) In addition, if your behavior is deemed to have contributed inordinately to the stall, you may be subject to a spam infraction for stonewalling - see the spam rules for details.
Expiration. After one week, you will not be infracted for discussing the stalled topic, as long as you start fresh rather than picking up where you left off: no quoting posts from the stall! Furthermore, you should learn from the stall and take extra care to avoid a second one.
Please report potential stalls.Especially if you're one of the people involved. A stall often occurs because neither debater can let the other get in the last word without losing face. This rule is intended to allow both sides a graceful exit. We strongly encourage you to take advantage of it.
Are these good ideas? Does anything need to be clarified? Do you have any suggested modifications, or different rules entirely? Or any other questions?
Once a stall has been declared, each participant may write one more post on the topic to get in their final thoughts, then the matter is considered settled.
At one point does one get to count as a participant? Everyone who posted in the thread? The most recent or prolific posters? Furthermore, does the one week reset each time somebody posts their final thoughts? Let's say you, me, and Mr. Hypothetical have been having a heated debate about whatever, and, after the topic is declared, the two of us post our final thoughts, while Mr. Hypothetical goes AWOL. If, three days later, he shows up, sees the stall, and posts his final thoughts, can the debate resume in four days, or in seven? (He might also get infracted I suppose, but that doesn't seem fair)
That said, I particularly like the Stonewalling addition to the Spam rules. It's specific enough that I could think of exactly the kind of post / debate you're referring too.
Zero-sided topics. In the first post of any Debate thread, it should be immediately obvious what topic debaters are supposed to take a position on in their responses. This can be a two-sided topic, in the manner of a formal debate - for example, "Should speed limits should be abolished on highways, or not?" But as we're a rather casual forum, formality is not required, and the topic can be more open if you wish - for example, "What is the best system of government?" It doesn't need to be explicitly in the form of a question, either. But if it is not obvious in your original post, you may be warned or infracted. This rule applies regardless of whether a debate starts further into the thread.
I actually don't like this rule.
Mainly because on some topics, I'm not sure how I feel about it - so I can't make it obvious about what side I'm on, when I haven't made up my mind and I don't want to be infracted or warned for that.
I play devil's advocate sometimes to scrutinize a position (sometimes both positions) and try to see what side seems to be able to stand up to scrutiny (not just mine, but other people too). Which under this rule, I could be warned or infracted for that.
The rest of the rules there seem pretty reasonable to me though, I especially like the stalled debate rule.
At one point does one get to count as a participant? Everyone who posted in the thread? The most recent or prolific posters? Furthermore, does the one week reset each time somebody posts their final thoughts? Let's say you, me, and Mr. Hypothetical have been having a heated debate about whatever, and, after the topic is declared, the two of us post our final thoughts, while Mr. Hypothetical goes AWOL. If, three days later, he shows up, sees the stall, and posts his final thoughts, can the debate resume in four days, or in seven? (He might also get infracted I suppose, but that doesn't seem fair)
Mainly because on some topics, I'm not sure how I feel about it - so I can't make it obvious about what side I'm on, when I haven't made up my mind and I don't want to be infracted or warned for that.
There's no requirement that you take a position, just that you clearly raise a question.
I play devil's advocate sometimes to scrutinize a position (sometimes both positions) and try to see what side seems to be able to stand up to scrutiny (not just mine, but other people too). Which under this rule, I could be warned or infracted for that.
I can't figure out where you're getting this implication. It's certainly not my intention to disallow devil's advocacy, that being one of my own favorite activities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In general, this is a no-foul rule: you won't earn an infraction for starting a topic that turns out to be one-sided. However, if the topic is foreseeably one-sided - for example, "Should you be allowed to drink and drive?" - then you can be infracted.
I don't particularly like this subsection of the one-sided topic rule. As an (admittedly somewhat extreme) free-speech advocate, I believe anyone should be able to express any position, no matter how stupid or reprehensible.
Heck, I don't even love the existing de facto banned topics rule, but I understand its presence in the light of attempting to make things somewhat family-friendly and approachable. That rule also has the virtue of (sort of) enumerating the kinds of things that are banned. This rule seems like an extension of that one into much more arbitrary territory.
For instance, to use the very example you named: a thread of the form "should you be allowed to drink and drive?" is something I wouldn't see closed down if it were up to me. It should always be acceptable to question even the most basic premises on which we build society. Even though such a thread should be a very easy win for the opposition, I still believe it could constitute a worthwhile pedagogical exercise. I mean, we've seen threads that are literally one-sided in a formally logical sense ("Does .999... really = 1??????") that sometimes produce interesting discussion. (Of course, if said thread was a clear trolling attempt, it ought to be closed -- but that case is already covered by the pre-existing rules.)
If the purpose of this rule is to reduce the number of "Congressman X said something really stupid, let's all dogpile him" threads, then I greatly prefer the catch-all "link and discuss" solution presented on your helpdesk to this particular rule change.
The rest of the rules seem useful; the stall rule might do quite a bit of good if it gets utilized correctly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
There's no requirement that you take a position, just that you clearly raise a question.
I can't figure out where you're getting this implication. It's certainly not my intention to disallow devil's advocacy, that being one of my own favorite activities.
I misread that paragraph (it's late, I'm gonna go to bed now me thinks) I read it again and I understand it now. I thought the rule was basically saying that we have to take a position when we post and if it wasn't obvious what position we hold, we'd be infracted or warned.
I don't particularly like this subsection of the one-sided topic rule. As an (admittedly somewhat extreme) free-speech advocate, I believe anyone should be able to express any position, no matter how stupid or reprehensible.
Heck, I don't even love the existing de facto banned topics rule, but I understand its presence in the light of attempting to make things somewhat family-friendly and approachable. That rule also has the virtue of (sort of) enumerating the kinds of things that are banned. This rule seems like an extension of that one into much more arbitrary territory.
For instance, to use the very example you named: a thread of the form "should you be allowed to drink and drive?" is something I wouldn't see closed down if it were up to me. It should always be acceptable to question even the most basic premises on which we build society. Even though such a thread should be a very easy win for the opposition, I still believe it could constitute a worthwhile pedagogical exercise. I mean, we've seen threads that are literally one-sided in a formally logical sense ("Does .999... really = 1??????") that sometimes produce interesting discussion. (Of course, if said thread was a clear trolling attempt, it ought to be closed -- but that case is already covered by the pre-existing rules.)
If the purpose of this rule is to reduce the number of "Congressman X said something really stupid, let's all dogpile him" threads, then I greatly prefer the catch-all "link and discuss" solution presented on your helpdesk to this particular rule change.
The rest of the rules seem useful; the stall rule might do quite a bit of good if it gets utilized correctly.
If someone posts "Should you be allowed to drink and drive?" and goes on to defend the affirmative in good faith, then you have a two-sided debate - regardless of the merit of his position or the skill of his defense. One-sided would be if he just poses the question without defending the affirmative, and then everybody naturally responds in the negative. Then there's no back-and-forth; it's not a debate.
However, I think you're right that malicious and obnoxious one-sided OPs can usually be infracted under preexisting rules. So I'll cut that part.
As for the Link-and-Discuss thread, it's very much in the grey area between WCT and Debate, so I want to work out some of the turf issues before deciding how or whether to move forward there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't know if a week is really necessary as a time length for a cool down. 4 days, 5 at the most, seems more reasonable, especially if someone does most of their posting on the weekends, they'd have the whole week to cool-off and then dive back in if they so chose.
I also question the necessity of the first rule existing formally. I mean, its a debate forum. We need to be debating something. Maybe putting in a short clarification of what a debate is and isn't in the forum description/rules thread instead of that 3 pronged rule governing types of debate, you know?
The discussion of the new WCT rules has raised the issue of the rather blurry line between that forum and Debate. And this discussion coincided with a a trend of only-vaguely-debatable threads appearing in Debate, which a few of us talked about in my helpdesk. My concern, in a nutshell, is that Debate has wandered just a bit too far from its original purpose. So to tighten things up a bit, I'd like to propose for discussion a couple of new rules.
The debate topic rules. In order to debate, you first need an issue with two sides. So when you start a new thread in this forum, you should write it carefully with this in mind.
Zero-sided topics. In the first post of any Debate thread, it should be immediately obvious what topic debaters are supposed to take a position on in their responses. This can be a two-sided topic, in the manner of a formal debate - for example, "Should speed limits should be abolished on highways, or not?" But as we're a rather casual forum, formality is not required, and the topic can be more open if you wish - for example, "What is the best system of government?" It doesn't need to be explicitly in the form of a question, either. But if it is not obvious in your original post, you may be warned or infracted. This rule applies regardless of whether a debate starts further into the thread.
One-sided topics. If everybody agrees on something, there is no debate. If a thread has proceeded for a reasonable amount of time but posters have not taken two or more positions on the topic, the thread may be closed. In general, this is a no-foul rule: you won't earn an infraction for starting a topic that turns out to be one-sided. However, if the topic is foreseeably one-sided - for example, "Should you be allowed to drink and drive?" - then you can be infracted.
On- and off-topic posts. Again, this is a casual debate forum. Therefore, it is acceptable for the conversation in a thread to evolve, as discussion of the original topic brings up new topics. However, this is not an excuse to go off on a tangential topic, especially not if that topic is large and worthy of a thread of its own. For example, if someone mentions God in a thread on abortion, that is not an invitation to start a debate about God's existence in that thread. Such posts will be considered off-topic.
(Updated) The stalled debate rule. Sometimes a debate turns into a grind, where both sides just retread the same ground over and over again. If a discussion has gone on for many posts without any appreciable progress, a moderator may step in to declare the debate stalled, bringing it to a peaceful end.
Final posts. Once a debate is declared stalled, each current participant in that debate may write one post, and no more, to set out their final thoughts. All final posts must be made within two days of the stall declaration. Edits to the post should be kept to actual editing, not major new additions, and are on the same two-day limit. A final post is not an excuse to flame, and in fact will be held to a stricter standard than normal as far as confrontational behavior (snark, sarcasm, etc.) is concerned: you're supposed to be stepping out of a confrontation.
End of conversation. After the final posts, the conversation is over. Please don't respond to posts from the stalled debate or otherwise attempt to continue it, no matter what thread you're posting in, and no matter whether you were a participant in the debate or not. But do note that this is the end of a conversation, not the end of a topic. Non-participants in the stall are welcome to start a fresh conversation on the topic at any time. And the participants in the stall can weigh in on the topic again, after a cooling-down period of one week from the stall declaration. (They should, however, take extra care to avoid another stall.)
No foul. Simply being involved in a stalled debate is not grounds for infraction. In fact, we strongly encourage you use the report button when you're in a debate that may be stalling. A stalled debate most commonly occurs when neither debater can let the other get in the last word without losing face, and the primary purpose of this rule is to allow both sides a graceful exit from this situation. Be aware, however, that posters can still be infracted for other forms of misbehavior. In particular, stonewalling (as described in the spam rules) is often involved in a stall.
The stalled debate rule. Sometimes a debate turns into a grind, where both sides just retread the same ground over and over again. If a discussion has gone on for many posts without any appreciable progress, a moderator may step in to declare the debate stalled. Once a stall has been declared, each participant may write one more post on the topic to get in their final thoughts, then the matter is considered settled. This is another no-foul rule: you won't be infracted for participating in a debate that stalls. However, continuing the debate after the final posts will of course earn an infraction. (This includes continuing the discussion in a different thread.) In addition, if your behavior is deemed to have contributed inordinately to the stall, you may be subject to a spam infraction for stonewalling - see the spam rules for details.
Expiration. After one week, you will not be infracted for discussing the stalled topic, as long as you start fresh rather than picking up where you left off: no quoting posts from the stall! Furthermore, you should learn from the stall and take extra care to avoid a second one.
Please report potential stalls.Especially if you're one of the people involved. A stall often occurs because neither debater can let the other get in the last word without losing face. This rule is intended to allow both sides a graceful exit. We strongly encourage you to take advantage of it.
Are these good ideas? Does anything need to be clarified? Do you have any suggested modifications, or different rules entirely? Or any other questions?
I like both rules -- my only concern is that it will be adding a lot onto your's and red_omegas plate. Stepping in when debates are stalled is going to be a common thing (as just about every debate stalls eventually).
If you think you can handle the workload I like the proposal.
I don't know if a week is really necessary as a time length for a cool down. 4 days, 5 at the most, seems more reasonable, especially if someone does most of their posting on the weekends, they'd have the whole week to cool-off and then dive back in if they so chose.
A week from the stall declaration means five days from the limit for final posts, which seems about right to me. Two or three days from that point would be too short.
I also question the necessity of the first rule existing formally. I mean, its a debate forum. We need to be debating something. Maybe putting in a short clarification of what a debate is and isn't in the forum description/rules thread instead of that 3 pronged rule governing types of debate, you know?
It started short, and sort of ballooned as I wrote it. I could probably cut the examples; in retrospect they seem unnecessary. But I do want to have the on- and off-topic policy (which we've had informally for a long time) in black and white, and I want to start being more proactive in ending threads where there's no real debate.
As I said in the other thread, a debate really needs 2 sides or it's not a debate it's a discussion.
Now it's perfectly possible to debate against an article for example.
Example : A blog or small news article lists Margaret Thatcher as greatest UK prime Minister ever.
Everyone in the thread could post arguments about why this article was wrong (or some may agree) but it could still be a debate.
If there is no one in the thread defending the article's position, then it's not a debate, it's a dogpile.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If there is no one in the thread defending the article's position, then it's not a debate, it's a dogpile.
Would it be worth including something that allows someone to affirmatively pull out of a debate? I ask, because I've been in situations where I was the only person defending side A before, and when I leave I've never posted saying I was done (other than waaaaaay back when I was a newb and got infracted for it).
Allowing posts that concede the debate (but not necessarily the issue) may be productive in ending debates as well.
Would it be worth including something that allows someone to affirmatively pull out of a debate? I ask, because I've been in situations where I was the only person defending side A before, and when I leave I've never posted saying I was done (other than waaaaaay back when I was a newb and got infracted for it).
Allowing posts that concede the debate (but not necessarily the issue) may be productive in ending debates as well.
Just a thought.
The rules and my enforcement of them have evolved, and I would not have infracted that post if you'd made it today.
Quote from The Rules »
Posts that are not spam. Not all spam posts are short, and not all short posts are spam. Even a simple “Yes” or “No” can be a perfectly productive post, provided it’s an adequate answer to a question that has been posed to you. Similarly, a concession or acknowledgement such as “Okay, I understand you now” is appropriate when you had previously been debating against the other guy’s position – in fact, it’s rather polite.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, I'm going to leave this thread here for another day, then if nobody has pointed out any more substantial changes to be made, I'll put these rules into effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Only suggestion is that after the two day rule that you lock the thread or post something at the end of it sayng that the read is over.
otherwise you could declare the debate over the two day period past and someone else post on it not realizing that it is over with.
There may be other people discussing other topics in the thread, so I'm not necessarily going to lock it. There will naturally be a modtext post declaring the stall, which should be sufficient notification.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(Revised) The debate topic rules. In order to debate, you first need an issue with two (or more) sides. So when you start a new thread in this forum, you should write it carefully with this goal in mind.
This can be a two-sided topic, in the manner of a formal debate - for example, "Should speed limits should be abolished on highways, or not?" But as we're a rather casual forum, formality is not required, and the topic can be more open if you wish - for example, "What is the best system of government?" It doesn't need to be explicitly in the form of a question, either.But if it is not obvious in your original post, you may be warned or infracted. This rule applies regardless of whether a debate starts further into the thread.However, if the topic is foreseeably one-sided - for example, "Should you be allowed to drink and drive?" - then you can be infracted.(Updated) The stalled debate rule. Sometimes a debate turns into a grind, where both sides just retread the same ground over and over again. If a discussion has gone on for many posts without any appreciable progress, a moderator may step in to declare the debate stalled, bringing it to a peaceful end.
Are these good ideas? Does anything need to be clarified? Do you have any suggested modifications, or different rules entirely? Or any other questions?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
At one point does one get to count as a participant? Everyone who posted in the thread? The most recent or prolific posters? Furthermore, does the one week reset each time somebody posts their final thoughts? Let's say you, me, and Mr. Hypothetical have been having a heated debate about whatever, and, after the topic is declared, the two of us post our final thoughts, while Mr. Hypothetical goes AWOL. If, three days later, he shows up, sees the stall, and posts his final thoughts, can the debate resume in four days, or in seven? (He might also get infracted I suppose, but that doesn't seem fair)
That said, I particularly like the Stonewalling addition to the Spam rules. It's specific enough that I could think of exactly the kind of post / debate you're referring too.
I actually don't like this rule.
Mainly because on some topics, I'm not sure how I feel about it - so I can't make it obvious about what side I'm on, when I haven't made up my mind and I don't want to be infracted or warned for that.
I play devil's advocate sometimes to scrutinize a position (sometimes both positions) and try to see what side seems to be able to stand up to scrutiny (not just mine, but other people too). Which under this rule, I could be warned or infracted for that.
The rest of the rules there seem pretty reasonable to me though, I especially like the stalled debate rule.
Good spots. Revising.
There's no requirement that you take a position, just that you clearly raise a question.
I can't figure out where you're getting this implication. It's certainly not my intention to disallow devil's advocacy, that being one of my own favorite activities.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't particularly like this subsection of the one-sided topic rule. As an (admittedly somewhat extreme) free-speech advocate, I believe anyone should be able to express any position, no matter how stupid or reprehensible.
Heck, I don't even love the existing de facto banned topics rule, but I understand its presence in the light of attempting to make things somewhat family-friendly and approachable. That rule also has the virtue of (sort of) enumerating the kinds of things that are banned. This rule seems like an extension of that one into much more arbitrary territory.
For instance, to use the very example you named: a thread of the form "should you be allowed to drink and drive?" is something I wouldn't see closed down if it were up to me. It should always be acceptable to question even the most basic premises on which we build society. Even though such a thread should be a very easy win for the opposition, I still believe it could constitute a worthwhile pedagogical exercise. I mean, we've seen threads that are literally one-sided in a formally logical sense ("Does .999... really = 1??????") that sometimes produce interesting discussion. (Of course, if said thread was a clear trolling attempt, it ought to be closed -- but that case is already covered by the pre-existing rules.)
If the purpose of this rule is to reduce the number of "Congressman X said something really stupid, let's all dogpile him" threads, then I greatly prefer the catch-all "link and discuss" solution presented on your helpdesk to this particular rule change.
The rest of the rules seem useful; the stall rule might do quite a bit of good if it gets utilized correctly.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I misread that paragraph (it's late, I'm gonna go to bed now me thinks) I read it again and I understand it now. I thought the rule was basically saying that we have to take a position when we post and if it wasn't obvious what position we hold, we'd be infracted or warned.
If someone posts "Should you be allowed to drink and drive?" and goes on to defend the affirmative in good faith, then you have a two-sided debate - regardless of the merit of his position or the skill of his defense. One-sided would be if he just poses the question without defending the affirmative, and then everybody naturally responds in the negative. Then there's no back-and-forth; it's not a debate.
However, I think you're right that malicious and obnoxious one-sided OPs can usually be infracted under preexisting rules. So I'll cut that part.
As for the Link-and-Discuss thread, it's very much in the grey area between WCT and Debate, so I want to work out some of the turf issues before deciding how or whether to move forward there.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I also question the necessity of the first rule existing formally. I mean, its a debate forum. We need to be debating something. Maybe putting in a short clarification of what a debate is and isn't in the forum description/rules thread instead of that 3 pronged rule governing types of debate, you know?
I like both rules -- my only concern is that it will be adding a lot onto your's and red_omegas plate. Stepping in when debates are stalled is going to be a common thing (as just about every debate stalls eventually).
If you think you can handle the workload I like the proposal.
A week from the stall declaration means five days from the limit for final posts, which seems about right to me. Two or three days from that point would be too short.
It started short, and sort of ballooned as I wrote it. I could probably cut the examples; in retrospect they seem unnecessary. But I do want to have the on- and off-topic policy (which we've had informally for a long time) in black and white, and I want to start being more proactive in ending threads where there's no real debate.
If there is no one in the thread defending the article's position, then it's not a debate, it's a dogpile.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Would it be worth including something that allows someone to affirmatively pull out of a debate? I ask, because I've been in situations where I was the only person defending side A before, and when I leave I've never posted saying I was done (other than waaaaaay back when I was a newb and got infracted for it).
Allowing posts that concede the debate (but not necessarily the issue) may be productive in ending debates as well.
Just a thought.
The rules and my enforcement of them have evolved, and I would not have infracted that post if you'd made it today.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
otherwise you could declare the debate over the two day period past and someone else post on it not realizing that it is over with.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There may be other people discussing other topics in the thread, so I'm not necessarily going to lock it. There will naturally be a modtext post declaring the stall, which should be sufficient notification.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.