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.

[Jester]

That said, my personal opinion is that a counter-argument need not be presented in order to examine claims. I simply wish to extend to the theist my point of view, as they present theirs, so that my own take may be as critically examined as I'm gonna try to do to theirs.

Seems fair enough (and the rest not reprinted here).

Best to you.

[Jester]

I'm glad to know that such behavior is a breach of rule #4.

Same here. Personally, it's my favorite of the rules.

...*For the record, I'd avoid this by claiming "God, as defined by Christianity, was not created, but exists eternally."

I and others have already tried such an approach on numerous occasions, all to no avail.

If this is happening, then I'd say you're in great shape as far as debating.
If someone wants to argue that Christianity doesn't define God this way, well, that's going to be a hard one to support at best.
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).

Anyway, if such behavior is a breach of rule #4, as you say, I hope I am not being unreasonable in expecting rule #4 to be enforced.

I definitely intend to enforce it.
I always give the caveat that the moderators don't always agree with members about what constitutes a breach of a rule, 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 58:

...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.

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

At what number of challenges to a suddenly silent claimant is challenging their claims gonna get the challenger into trouble? 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?

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.

[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?