New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[EduChris]

...If it were me, I'd just keep pointing out that I never claimed (on that topic) that Christianity is true (and mentally chalk that up to an easy win)...

I've already implemented your previous advice ("...usergroup 'Seeks Answers' as a way of warning people that I would not be interacting with such individuals..."); therefore, I am not now speaking about anything to do with my own experience on this site--I am fine simply ignoring incessant off-topic challenges from that particular subsection of non-theists which repetitively engages in such tactics.

My concern now is the experience of others on this site, particularly newcomers who innocently take seriously the Forums "Respectful Religious Debates" subheader. What are they to think when they begin their posting, only to be instantly subjected to a barrage of off-topic challenges from the same sub-section of non-theists which ubiquitously engages in such tactics?

In my view, if we can't enforce rule #4 consistently and evenly, then we should change the "Respectful Religious Debate" subheader to something more accurate--i.e., "Incessant Off-topic challenges to each and every post."

I appreciate your willingness to enforce rule #4; all we need now is for the other moderators to get on board, especially for the most egregious and repetitive violations. I hate to see us losing good people due to the incessant off-topic challenges of a particular subsection of non-theists.

[JoeyKnothead]

If there weren't "incessant off-topic" claims being made, there wouldn't be "incessant off-topic" challenges to those claims.

I contend we do a great disservice when we allow a claimant's claims to go unchallenged for fear of being accused of offering "incessant off-topic" challenges.

What is so difficult to understand about the concept of...


If you make claims, support or retract when challenged?


While some are being accused of "incessant off-topic challenges", notice there's not the first mention of how we might address a claimant actually being held to some standard that says if you make claims, be prepared to support them.

I contend what we are witnessing is an effort by an individual to assert that I, JoeyKnothead, somehow bring this forum down when I ask a claimant...

to abide by the rules they agreed to upon signing up.

I reckon that makes me Satan.

[EduChris]

...If you make claims, support or retract when challenged?...

This entire discussion revolves around whether a statement does or does not fall within the parameters of the assumptions involved in the particular question raised in the OP of a thread. If someone makes a claim that goes beyond the assumptions for sake of argument in the OP, then a challenge is justified--and indeed I am unaware of any argument in this matter.

However, a small subsection of non-theists on this board repeatedly attempts to dictate to everyone else that the assumptions-for-sake-of-argument in the OP must be fully "confirmed" or shown to be "true and factual." This is the heart of the problem.

I think I have a solution to the problem: instead of outright challenges, simply ask the poster if they would like to defend a particular "claim" or "statement," or if instead they feel their "claim" or "statement" falls within the assumptions-for-sake-of-argument given in the OP. As long as this is asked as a polite question, rather than demanded in repeated confrontational challenges, this solution should solve the matter for all persons of goodwill.

[Jester]

...but I definitely agree that an off-topic challenge is as against rule 4 as an off-topic claim. So long as it is repeated, this is a problem.

I think this would have a negative impact on one's ability to accurately address a given issue. Is a challenger expected to read the mind of the claimant in order to determine that the claimant considers their claim off-topic?

I propose that unless and until a claimant declares their claim off-topic, the principle of charity, of which our OPer is a proponent, would be that we consider the claim somehow relevant.

I suppose I was picturing the person telling you the point is off topic.
But, frankly, you don't need to be a mind-reader. You'd only need to understand the topic. If we are discussing "is God moral?" anyone making repetitive challenges for evidence that God exists would be off topic, regardless of the psychology of the person being challenged.
This seems pretty simple to me.

Would a claimant who ignores or refuses to address challenges to their claim face the same sanction as one who had to repeatedly challenge that claim in order to better understand the claim?

So long as a person does not continue to make a claim after it has been challenged, there is no obligation under the rules to support it.
But, if you're really interested in an off-topic claim, feel free to open a new topic and invite the original claimant.

Would the necessity of repeatedly challenging a suddenly silent claimant then cause the challenger to incur multiple infractions?

Why on Earth would you repeatedly challenge a silent person?
Isn't that kicking a dead horse?

What if only after repeated challenges does the claimant then declare their claim off-topic, or offers something else? Does the repeated challenging - that eventually produced results - then incur a penalty?

Not at all, if the challenges were on topic.
If, however, a side comment received repeated challenges until the original claimant had to finally point out that the challenger is nagging on something that was never on topic, that would be a breach of rule 4.

And, honestly, I don't see what "results" are being produced in any case. Forcing someone (whether a claimant or a moderator) to explain that a series of challenges is off topic only "results" in a lesson on reading comprehension. It tells us nothing about the topic of debate.

Where does the rule regarding repeated unsubstantiated claims come into play? If I challenge repeated unsubstantiated claims, am I now broaching the "don't repeat challenges" deal?

I don't remember there ever being a "don't repeat challenges" deal. It was repeated off-topic remarks (whether claims or challenges) that are against the rules.

Punishing the challenger is not the right way to go, when all a claimant need do is fess up as to the nature of their claim.

I don't recall there being a "fess up" rule on this forum. Much less do we require members to concede off-topic points.

[Jester]

My concern now is the experience of others on this site, particularly newcomers who innocently take seriously the Forums "Respectful Religious Debates" subheader. What are they to think when they begin their posting, only to be instantly subjected to a barrage of off-topic challenges from the same sub-section of non-theists which ubiquitously engages in such tactics?

I'd definitely encourage members to report repeated off topic challenges as breaches of rule 4.

I appreciate your willingness to enforce rule #4; all we need now is for the other moderators to get on board, especially for the most egregious and repetitive violations. I hate to see us losing good people due to the incessant off-topic challenges of a particular subsection of non-theists.

Osteng seems to agree, and I'd definitely be willing to run it past the others.
I think the main thing is to report things. Else, its almost certain that the moderators will miss it.

[otseng]

My concern now is the experience of others on this site, particularly newcomers who innocently take seriously the Forums "Respectful Religious Debates" subheader. What are they to think when they begin their posting, only to be instantly subjected to a barrage of off-topic challenges from the same sub-section of non-theists which ubiquitously engages in such tactics?

I'd definitely encourage members to report repeated off topic challenges as breaches of rule 4.

I appreciate your willingness to enforce rule #4; all we need now is for the other moderators to get on board, especially for the most egregious and repetitive violations. I hate to see us losing good people due to the incessant off-topic challenges of a particular subsection of non-theists.

Osteng seems to agree, and I'd definitely be willing to run it past the others.
I think the main thing is to report things. Else, its almost certain that the moderators will miss it.

Yes, I am in agreement with this.

[ThatGirlAgain]

My concern now is the experience of others on this site, particularly newcomers who innocently take seriously the Forums "Respectful Religious Debates" subheader. What are they to think when they begin their posting, only to be instantly subjected to a barrage of off-topic challenges from the same sub-section of non-theists which ubiquitously engages in such tactics?

I'd definitely encourage members to report repeated off topic challenges as breaches of rule 4.

I appreciate your willingness to enforce rule #4; all we need now is for the other moderators to get on board, especially for the most egregious and repetitive violations. I hate to see us losing good people due to the incessant off-topic challenges of a particular subsection of non-theists.

Osteng seems to agree, and I'd definitely be willing to run it past the others.
I think the main thing is to report things. Else, its almost certain that the moderators will miss it.

Yes, I am in agreement with this.

While I agree that off-topic material is in general reportable, I am not clear on what an off-topic challenge is. I presume the type of challenge meant is asking for justification for a statement that is not supported either in the post itself, or in explicit or implied assumptions of the OP or of the conversation to date. If the statement is itself on-topic then how can a challenge to provide support be off-topic?

In particular:

If one makes a bare statement from the perspective of one’s worldview
(a worldview not already assumed in any way in the thread or the sub-forum)

And presents it as a fact
(not simply as an opinion or as a representation of a personal worldview)

But provides no support for the validity of that statement or underlying worldview,


Is it allowable to make a challenge to provide support for that statement?

[otseng]

In particular:

If one makes a bare statement from the perspective of one’s worldview
(a worldview not already assumed in any way in the thread or the sub-forum)

And presents it as a fact
(not simply as an opinion or as a representation of a personal worldview)

But provides no support for the validity of that statement or underlying worldview,


Is it allowable to make a challenge to provide support for that statement?

Here's my take.

If the bare statement is related to the OP, then the challenge would not be considered off-topic. If the bare statement is not related to the OP, then that by itself (and any following challenges) would be off-topic.

Another issue is how often one makes the same bare statement and how often one issues a challenge. My opinion is that if these are done repeatedly, then they clutter threads and do not further debate. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are necessarily off-topic, but I don't think they are productive.

This does raise the issue if we need to modify the Moderator Claim Withdrawal Procedure. Right now, it only addresses a claim being made multiple times. Perhaps we need to change it so that if a claim is made once, and a challenger asks for evidence and nothing is provided after a certain amount of time, then the MCWP can then be invoked.

[JoeyKnothead]

Catching up...

From Post 62:

This entire discussion revolves around whether a statement does or does not fall within the parameters of the assumptions involved in the particular question raised in the OP of a thread.

Agreed.

If someone makes a claim that goes beyond the assumptions for sake of argument in the OP, then a challenge is justified--and indeed I am unaware of any argument in this matter.

Agreed, but I contend that under the principle of charity, we assume a poster considers their post within such guidelines, or directly relevant to the OP.

However, a small subsection of non-theists on this board repeatedly attempts to dictate...

A dictator:



A challenger:



I contend that where one is incapable of forcing others to post in a given manner, describing that someone with the term "dictate" should be read as an indication one doesn't wish to expose a claim to challenge.

to everyone else that the assumptions-for-sake-of-argument in the OP must be fully "confirmed" or shown to be "true and factual." This is the heart of the problem.

I can dig that, but I think you fail to understand why I use such terms...

I use such terms in an effort to better understand claims, and to better understand a claimant (as to education, assumptions, intelligence, evidence, conclusions, etc.). Where a claimant hops straight up and fesses up to the nature of their claim, I contend we can gain some measure of the claimant's credibility. Where they instead complain about the phrasing of a question, and where they absolutely refuse to address the challenged claim, I contend we gain some understanding about the claim.

Notice again, I do not "dictate" what phrasing anyone else uses.

Why the attempt to "dictate" to me what phrasing I or others may use?

I contend that what we are witnessing is an attempt to help the theist avoid responsibility for their claims, where the mere challenging of a claim - often requiring repeated requests - is the ultimate issue.

I think I have a solution to the problem: instead of outright challenges, simply ask the poster if they would like to defend a particular "claim" or "statement,"

What part of "I challenge you to show you speak truth" is not asking if the poster "would like to defend a particular claim or statement"?

or if instead they feel their "claim" or "statement" falls within the assumptions-for-sake-of-argument given in the OP.

What's wrong with the claimant offering such up when challenged?

I contend what is going on here is someone doesn't like the implications of some challenges, and is seeking to sanction those who - through no fault of their own - must repeatedly challenge a claimant before (or if) they respond.

As long as this is asked as a polite question, rather than demanded in repeated confrontational challenges, this solution should solve the matter for all persons of goodwill.

I contend that if one was of "goodwill" they'd take responsibility for their claims.

---------------------------------------
From Post 63:

I suppose I was picturing the person telling you the point is off topic.
But, frankly, you don't need to be a mind-reader. You'd only need to understand the topic. If we are discussing "is God moral?" anyone making repetitive challenges for evidence that God exists would be off topic, regardless of the psychology of the person being challenged.
This seems pretty simple to me.

I eventually ended up getting that. My issue would lie in a post where assumptions and such are not explicitly stated. So, within a thread regarding such an OP, "God is moral because Matthew said it," would seemingly fall to the OP assumption. However, I make no assumption that the Bible accurately records what this Matthew says.

So, has the claimant assumed that since the OP in question may allow for the existence of the Christian God, and has the OP allowed for the assumption the Bible is an accurate take?

I propose that many of us will have our own assumptions about what assumptions an individual has taken in presenting their case. With this in mind, I see nothing wrong with allowing or expecting a claimant to present their assumptions when another doesn't see or understand those assumptions.

So long as a person does not continue to make a claim after it has been challenged, there is no obligation under the rules to support it.

That reads like "As long as you make a claim and don't support it, you're good to go. Your claim'll stand as long as you refuse to support it."

I find such a condition ill-conceived for purposes of debate.

But, if you're really interested in an off-topic claim, feel free to open a new topic and invite the original claimant.

My doing exactly that seems to be what has brought us to this OP.

Why on Earth would you repeatedly challenge a silent person?
Isn't that kicking a dead horse?

It's allowing the observer a greater opportunity to see the claimant will not support their claim, with what conclusions they draw from such being up to the observer.

What if only after repeated challenges does the claimant then declare their claim off-topic, or offers something else? Does the repeated challenging - that eventually produced results - then incur a penalty?

Not at all, if the challenges were on topic.
If, however, a side comment received repeated challenges until the original claimant had to finally point out that the challenger is nagging on something that was never on topic, that would be a breach of rule 4.

I think I'm just gonna stop here.

If challenging a claim is "nagging", I see no reason to continue "debate" on this or any other topic.

I contend that when a claimant is allowed to avoid responsibility for their claims, what we have is no longer debate.

I'll await a final ruling on this issue/OP and go from there.

(Edit one image tag because the "Submit" button is, come to find out, not the "Preview" button)

[Jester]

This does raise the issue if we need to modify the Moderator Claim Withdrawal Procedure. Right now, it only addresses a claim being made multiple times. Perhaps we need to change it so that if a claim is made once, and a challenger asks for evidence and nothing is provided after a certain amount of time, then the MCWP can then be invoked.

I'm not opposed to that in principle, so long as we can keep up with these claims in practice while still holding down the day job.