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]

Okay, greetings one again!

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.

Of course we're never going to agree perfectly on what a topic is, but I think we should have a general idea if we stop to think.

In your example, for instance, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge the idea that we should accept anything the Bible claims. But it is off-topic to start asking questions about the authorship of Matthew.
That is, the relevant issue is biblical authority, not biblical "author"ity.

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.

I honestly have no idea why it reads like that to you.
In debate, if someone claims something I consider to be silly, I challenge it. If my challenge is followed by silence, the claim hasn't stood. It has fallen due to the challenge.
I don't remotely see why this adds up to "good to go"; it adds up to "good to stop, but if you want to keep going, support the claim".

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.

Well, yes, other people are allowed to open topics as well.
But you'll notice that I'm not opposing your doing so - I'm all for people being asked to support their claims, so long as they are on-topic.

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.

To be a bit blunt, this strikes me as rhetoric - rather than rational debate.
If an observer can't see that with one challenge, I'm not interested in cluttering threads with repetitive claims on the speculation that someone with reading comprehension difficulties may be lurking.
Once a claim is dropped by the claimant, it should be dropped by all sides so that we can get on to the points that are being supported.

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.

Please try your best to avoid making assumptions about my position.
I never state that challenging is nagging. Rather, I said that making repetitive challenges to a single comment which was not repeated is nagging.
If this is, in addition to that, off-topic, I'm left wondering why anyone in her right mind would to this.

Getting back to our example, if I were to make a comment about God's being good that was worded in such a way that it seemed I was also claiming that God exists, I hope people would realize my mistake and move on. If, however, someone posts daily challenges that I support my claim of God's existence, it may take me a few rounds before I'm back online to say "that was never the point or the topic".
That being the case, yes, I'd say that is off topic and against rule 4.

But you seem to think that "off-topic" is whatever the claimant says it is. That's not the case. The topic is defined by the OP. You shouldn't have to wait to hear from the claimant to say "that's not the topic". The OP tells you this.

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

I fully agree, and have no idea why you seem to think I've claimed otherwise.

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

You may be better equipped to influence the final ruling if you would address the statements I'm actually making. You might have something really insightful to add.


As it stands:
1. I agree that claims should be challenged.
2. I agree that support should be given for claims.
3. I disagree with the notion that a challenge which silences a person should be repeated for the sake of impact on observers.
4. I disagree that an off-topic challenge should be allowed so long as the claimant hasn't expressly told the challenger that this is off-topic.
5. I agree that there is some room for interpretation, and feel that the benefit of the doubt should be given to claimants and challengers alike regarding rule 4.
6. I disagree that a person is not liable under the rules simply because she doesn't understand what the topic is well enough to avoid blatantly contradicting it. I harbor no ill will to such a person, but she does not have the minimum skill required to participate.
7. I agree that it is very frustrating to challenge without a response, but also agree with others that it is frustrating to receive a challenge without a counterclaim. I'd love both practices to stop, but would also love off-topic remarks to cease.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

If my vote counts, count it now, in the affirmative.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 70:

Okay, greetings once again!

Back at ya.

As I find Jester an infinitely reasonable (and patient) member of this, our human society, I must conclude that there's something I'm not getting about his position. Or, I must conclude that I'm failing in my attempt to fully explain mine. I accuse none of an inability to understand, I accuse none of an inability to change their own position. That said, it does seem as if my argument has been expressed to the best of my ability, and I can only demur to the wisdom of the moderators on this issue.

As Jester requests my input, I'll leave my final remarks...

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.

I honestly have no idea why it reads like that to you.

Because it leaves the claim open, where no support is offered, but no retraction is presented.

In debate, if someone claims something I consider to be silly, I challenge it. If my challenge is followed by silence, the claim hasn't stood. It has fallen due to the challenge.

So I request that such a claim be formally stricken, to ensure the observer is not misled into thinking it valid.

I don't remotely see why this adds up to "good to go"; it adds up to "good to stop, but if you want to keep going, support the claim".

I concur when the issue is multiple presentations of a given claim. I disagree as this relates to a single presentation.

Well, yes, other people are allowed to open topics as well.
But you'll notice that I'm not opposing your doing so - I'm all for people being asked to support their claims, so long as they are on-topic.

I agree about the issue of a claim being on topic, where I diverge is in expecting a challenger to know when a claim is or is not on topic, especially when such is not explicitly stated.

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.

To be a bit blunt, this strikes me as rhetoric - rather than rational debate.

Would you accept that the term "kicking a dead horse" has some rhetoric to it? Don't answer.

If an observer can't see that with one challenge, I'm not interested in cluttering threads with repetitive claims on the speculation that someone with reading comprehension difficulties may be lurking.

As one who has some difficulty in the area of comprehending, I consider it a duty to ensure the observer ain't struggling with it themself.

Once a claim is dropped by the claimant, it should be dropped by all sides so that we can get on to the points that are being supported.

Exactly. But they so often aren't dropped, just not supported. My intention is to show these claimants for what I contend them to be - less than honorable - and to help the observer see they are not to be trusted. It can be reasonably concluded that a claimant may miss the first challenge, the second, the third. But what about the fourth? The fifth? I contend that as this number rises, the observer gains increasing confidence in their own conclusion.

If a claimant is allowed to make a claim, but then ignore challenges, I contend this is not debate. (I say that while noting the Great otseng's Post 67.)

Please try your best to avoid making assumptions about my position.
I never state that challenging is nagging. Rather, I said that making repetitive challenges to a single comment which was not repeated is nagging.
If this is, in addition to that, off-topic, I'm left wondering why anyone in her right mind would to this.

While I say that as the number of unanswered challenges increases, the observer is better able to make their conclusions.

I see multiple challenges to one claim as one challenge, restated to ensure the claimant sees it (as well as for previously stated reasons).

Getting back to our example, if I were to make a comment about God's being good that was worded in such a way that it seemed I was also claiming that God exists, I hope people would realize my mistake and move on. If, however, someone posts daily challenges that I support my claim of God's existence, it may take me a few rounds before I'm back online to say "that was never the point or the topic".
That being the case, yes, I'd say that is off topic and against rule 4.

I prefer not to debate over hypotheticals, because they are easily constructed to ensure one's position prevails. I contend the most reasonable position is that a claimant considers their claim relevant, until such time they say it ain't.

But you seem to think that "off-topic" is whatever the claimant says it is. That's not the case. The topic is defined by the OP. You shouldn't have to wait to hear from the claimant to say "that's not the topic". The OP tells you this.

For some of y'all highly intelligent folks, it may well do just that. For some of us this is not always clear. Again I go back to the principle of charity regarding claims.

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

I fully agree, and have no idea why you seem to think I've claimed otherwise.

What I'm getting at is the notion that a claim can be presented - but that no support is necessary unless the claim is repeated.

You may be better equipped to influence the final ruling if you would address the statements I'm actually making. You might have something really insightful to add.

It would seem that me and insight live in entirely different galaxies


I snip items of agreement...

As it stands:
...
3. I disagree with the notion that a challenge which silences a person should be repeated for the sake of impact on observers.

While I think it helps the observer to better understand the issue, the claimant, or both.

4. I disagree that an off-topic challenge should be allowed so long as the claimant hasn't expressly told the challenger that this is off-topic.

The wording there confuses me a bit. I contend that a claim that is off-topic should not lead us to conclude a challenge to that claim is off-topic (insofar as there sits that claim). I further contend that punishing the challenger should be discouraged and avoided.

Maybe I didn't snip all agreement...

5. I agree that there is some room for interpretation, and feel that the benefit of the doubt should be given to claimants and challengers alike regarding rule 4.

I agree in principle and maybe fully. My contention would regard the issue of a challenger not presenting their challenge for fear of sanction.

6. I disagree that a person is not liable under the rules simply because she doesn't understand what the topic is well enough to avoid blatantly contradicting it. I harbor no ill will to such a person, but she does not have the minimum skill required to participate.

While I contend a well placed, "Well, about that..." could solve the matter in one post.

7. I agree that it is very frustrating to challenge without a response, but also agree with others that it is frustrating to receive a challenge without a counterclaim. I'd love both practices to stop, but would also love off-topic remarks to cease.

While I'm trying to ensure that in the future I offer a counter-claim when challenging, I contend the initial claim itself should be open to challenge, regardless of counter-claims, and that sometimes there may be no counter-claim available.

[JoeyKnothead]

On the issue of whether a claim or challenge is or is not on topic, I present the following thread as a prime example of how what one considers topical, another may not...

Christianity & Apologetics: Ephesians 2:10.

Notice, where I sincerely felt that by challenging the single statement within its original thread, I couldn't tell if such a challenge would be acceptable or not.

So, I singled the statement out, linking back to it so folks could see the entire post, to ensure they could see it in context. I didn't even mention the new OP within the old thread to ensure that no challenge was presented that may then be considered "off-topic".

So, I feel the statement itself is ripe for challenge - but, do I start a new OP, where by addressing the sole claim, I'm now considered as taking it out of context - creating an "off-topic" form of challenge in a new OP, or do I risk derailing a thread, as some claim for any "off-topic" challenge?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but some of us are simply unaware of just how to tell by an objective measure what can be, as I contend the above referenced OP shows, a subjective determination (topicality).

Notice too, it is a moderator who is having difficulty understanding under what context my OP is being presented (realizing I may well be missing something, while contending I ain't). If we have difficulty understanding what context an OP is presented, can't we reasonably conclude that by challenging a claim it may simply be a fact that the challenger doesn't understand the context under which a statement or claim is made?

I propose that where we see "off-topic" challenges, we do not sanction such, but expect a claimant to clarify the "topicality" of their claim.

I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers. What I do seek is an understanding that just because the rhetorical "you" may see a claim within a given context, others may not.

[EduChris]

...do I start a new OP....I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers...

I suspect that TGAs comments have been directed at you on the thread you reference at least partly because of the "cry wolf" syndrome. You have started so many unnecessary, redundant, off-top posts and threads and challenges in the past, so that now every thread you start, evey post you make, is automatically placed into the "here he goes again" bucket, unless there is some good reason to suppose you have actually started a thread apart from "debate games" and "feigned ignorance."

I wonder why you are so quick to start a new thread, when in fact there are already numerous existing threads wherein interested people are already engaged in conversation about the very point you are raising?

All that said, I am waiting for your response to this post.

[ThatGirlAgain]

On the issue of whether a claim or challenge is or is not on topic, I present the following thread as a prime example of how what one considers topical, another may not...

Christianity & Apologetics: Ephesians 2:10.

Notice, where I sincerely felt that by challenging the single statement within its original thread, I couldn't tell if such a challenge would be acceptable or not.

So, I singled the statement out, linking back to it so folks could see the entire post, to ensure they could see it in context. I didn't even mention the new OP within the old thread to ensure that no challenge was presented that may then be considered "off-topic".

So, I feel the statement itself is ripe for challenge - but, do I start a new OP, where by addressing the sole claim, I'm now considered as taking it out of context - creating an "off-topic" form of challenge in a new OP, or do I risk derailing a thread, as some claim for any "off-topic" challenge?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but some of us are simply unaware of just how to tell by an objective measure what can be, as I contend the above referenced OP shows, a subjective determination (topicality).

Notice too, it is a moderator who is having difficulty understanding under what context my OP is being presented (realizing I may well be missing something, while contending I ain't). If we have difficulty understanding what context an OP is presented, can't we reasonably conclude that by challenging a claim it may simply be a fact that the challenger doesn't understand the context under which a statement or claim is made?

I propose that where we see "off-topic" challenges, we do not sanction such, but expect a claimant to clarify the "topicality" of their claim.

I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers. What I do seek is an understanding that just because the rhetorical "you" may see a claim within a given context, others may not.

As I thought I made clear, I was not being a mod in that thread, just cranky old (20!!!) TGA.

It was the apparent implications of the presentation - a direct reference to a post written in a certain context and the context-laden thread title (a scriptural reference) - juxtaposed with the context switching tone of the OP that struck me as very problematic. In short, a statement made in a certain specific context was extracted from that context and a justification sought for that now anchorless statement. In even shorter, an out of context challenge. (Off-topic challenge is the wrong phrase IMO.)

As I said, it is not the topic that is the issue. It is the presentation and its hard to avoid inference of asking for justification of a biblical reference with a stated scope of biblical references but in a non-biblical setting. IMO it is exactly this kind of thing that the 'shouting' is all about in this thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 74:

...do I start a new OP....I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers...

I suspect that TGAs comments have been directed at you on the thread you reference at least partly because of the "cry wolf" syndrome. You have started so many unnecessary, redundant, off-top posts and threads and challenges in the past...

I don't doubt many folks describe or consider challenges to claims in the manner you describe.

so that now every thread you start, evey post you make, is automatically placed into the "here he goes again" bucket, unless there is some good reason to suppose you have actually started a thread apart from "debate games" and "feigned ignorance."

I present challenges because I seek the truth. If such truth can be resolved with a simple, "Well, about that..." I contend we're that much closer to it. The truth of a given matter may well be grounded in irrefutable fact, it may well be grounded in reasoned and logical conclusions, and it may well be grounded in "the Bible said it, so it's true". I contend that without challenging a given claim, we're left to wonder.

I accept any charge of ignorance one seeks to lay on me. I contend this ignorance is best cured by seeking the truth.

I wonder why you are so quick to start a new thread, when in fact there are already numerous existing threads wherein interested people are already engaged in conversation about the very point you are raising?

I think the confusion here is a prime example of why we shouldn't discourage or sanction challengers. Where I, me, JoeyKnothead, may have my own context, even if not spelled out, I present challenges or OPs to discuss such. Often though, folks jump to their conclusions as to what I'm trying to get at, or jump to their conclusions regarding what I may or may not "allow" folks, whom I have no control over, to post. As I've said many, many times, I don't care what folks present in support of their claims, nor do I continually challenge a claim where a claimant has clarified, supported, or retracted. Notice, in this regard, I'm willing to accept that one's evidence is fine for them, but I may challenge or argue against their conclusions drawn from such.

So, if only to me, the Bible is evidence insofar as that's what folks use as their evidence (circular maybe, but there, I said it). I contend it's the conclusions drawn from the Bible that are so often faulty.

All that said, I am waiting for your response to this post.

I'm trying to get to ya quick as I can, and feel you deserve a response.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 75:

As I thought I made clear, I was not being a mod in that thread, just cranky old (20!!!) TGA.

Agreed on the first bit, but downright refusing to accept you're just a cranky old anything. My point was that you are indeed a moderator, and that as such, your ability to understand from a mod's perspective shows that sometimes even the best of us - and you are most certainly among the best - are unable to understand in just what context a given deal is presented. That works from my POV as well - where I may and often do have difficulty explaining my own position.

By no means did I seek to imply you were making rulings, and I do 'preciate that we are having that discussion. I'm willing to admit to any error I may make, but I just don't think I have in that thread, which is from my context, not the original claimant's.

It was the apparent implications of the presentation - a direct reference to a post written in a certain context and the context-laden thread title (a scriptural reference) - juxtaposed with the context switching tone of the OP that struck me as very problematic. In short, a statement made in a certain specific context was extracted from that context and a justification sought for that now anchorless statement. In even shorter, an out of context challenge. (Off-topic challenge is the wrong phrase IMO.)

And my point of view is that I linked to the entire post to ensure context, that I then presented the pertinent part of what I sought to address, and that I've done everything I can to explain that I understand the statement to be from a Christian perspective. I placed that OP in the context of apologetics, not Christian belief.

As I said, it is not the topic that is the issue. It is the presentation and its hard to avoid inference of asking for justification of a biblical reference with a stated scope of biblical references but in a non-biblical setting. IMO it is exactly this kind of thing that the 'shouting' is all about in this thread.

But how come I've avoided the inference? I contend that where you fail to understand the context in which I placed that OP, or where I failed to properly explain the context, your challenges to me within that thread will help us all come to a better understanding of the claim in question.

You ostensibly argue in that thread that I don't even understand the context in which I presented my own OP.



Christianity & Apologetics.

So, some folks are gonna say such as, "In my belief system, which is Christianity, there's this...".

Cool. Now, what I typically try to do is to remove the context or perspective of the belief system, in this case Christianity, and turn it into an issue of apologetics. I contend that I am within the rules of this site, and the subforum in question when I do. I fully agree that a poster or claimant will have their belief, they'll have their perspective, they'll have their context. How could they not? I don't say that a poster can't present their belief, I don't say they can't present anything they want in support of that belief, and I don't even say they can't change or disagree with my own context* if that is what is required to support their notions. *While remaining within site/forum rules and guidelines.

Granted, I could have or should have fully explained the context under which that OP was presented, within the OP itself. Hindsight is indeed brilliant. I contend though that by answering challenges to that context, I've done the best I possibly can to ensure folks understand exactly under what context the OP was presented. That folks may disagree and say my own context is in error is fine with me, as I can't force anyone to accept anything. And of course, I agree that I may fail in my ability to explain the context in which I presented my own OP.

[ThatGirlAgain]

From Post 75:

As I thought I made clear, I was not being a mod in that thread, just cranky old (20!!!) TGA.

Agreed on the first bit, but downright refusing to accept you're just a cranky old anything. My point was that you are indeed a moderator, and that as such, your ability to understand from a mod's perspective shows that sometimes even the best of us - and you are most certainly among the best - are unable to understand in just what context a given deal is presented. That works from my POV as well - where I may and often do have difficulty explaining my own position.

By no means did I seek to imply you were making rulings, and I do 'preciate that we are having that discussion. I'm willing to admit to any error I may make, but I just don't think I have in that thread, which is from my context, not the original claimant's.

It was the apparent implications of the presentation - a direct reference to a post written in a certain context and the context-laden thread title (a scriptural reference) - juxtaposed with the context switching tone of the OP that struck me as very problematic. In short, a statement made in a certain specific context was extracted from that context and a justification sought for that now anchorless statement. In even shorter, an out of context challenge. (Off-topic challenge is the wrong phrase IMO.)

And my point of view is that I linked to the entire post to ensure context, that I then presented the pertinent part of what I sought to address, and that I've done everything I can to explain that I understand the statement to be from a Christian perspective. I placed that OP in the context of apologetics, not Christian belief.

As I said, it is not the topic that is the issue. It is the presentation and its hard to avoid inference of asking for justification of a biblical reference with a stated scope of biblical references but in a non-biblical setting. IMO it is exactly this kind of thing that the 'shouting' is all about in this thread.

But how come I've avoided the inference? I contend that where you fail to understand the context in which I placed that OP, or where I failed to properly explain the context, your challenges to me within that thread will help us all come to a better understanding of the claim in question.

You ostensibly argue in that thread that I don't even understand the context in which I presented my own OP.



Christianity & Apologetics.

So, some folks are gonna say such as, "In my belief system, which is Christianity, there's this...".

Cool. Now, what I typically try to do is to remove the context or perspective of the belief system, in this case Christianity, and turn it into an issue of apologetics. I contend that I am within the rules of this site, and the subforum in question when I do. I fully agree that a poster or claimant will have their belief, they'll have their perspective, they'll have their context. How could they not? I don't say that a poster can't present their belief, I don't say they can't present anything they want in support of that belief, and I don't even say they can't change or disagree with my own context* if that is what is required to support their notions. *While remaining within site/forum rules and guidelines.

Granted, I could have or should have fully explained the context under which that OP was presented, within the OP itself. Hindsight is indeed brilliant. I contend though that by answering challenges to that context, I've done the best I possibly can to ensure folks understand exactly under what context the OP was presented. That folks may disagree and say my own context is in error is fine with me, as I can't force anyone to accept anything. And of course, I agree that I may fail in my ability to explain the context in which I presented my own OP.

Nobody said anything about rules. Like I said no moderatifyin' going on.

All I am saying is that if your context is other than that of the post you quote and link to and what would reasonably seem to be implied by the thread title, make your assumptions/context clear and explicit. Otherwise you will not be understood by everyone and the debate on how to debate will continue to be debated. Or debatified.