BEFORE YOU POST THAT REPLY . . . . . .

[WestViking]

<CENTER>BEFORE YOU POST THAT REPLY . . . . . . </CENTER>

It is crucial to a vibrant and healthy forum for FD members to understand how debate and discussion work and to employ proper respect for fellow members.

It is frustrating when we find ourselves clashing with opponents while making no headway towards reaching a meeting of our minds. Remember that if we are not open to changing our minds, we are not in a debate or discussion; our objective is to impose our will on others and we will not be treated kindly.

• Remember that your opponents have reached their conclusions using the same rational process you did. The difference is not due to their intellect, but rather the information they have and the values they hold.

• Understand this means that your opponent feels just as confident about the accuracy of his or her position. This requires that you prove that their information or values are deficient or incorrect in order to persuade them to change their views.

• Realize that successful debate can only take place when you inform and persuade by supplying added information and by addressing the values behind your opponent's conclusions and that you must remain open to valid arguments by your opponent.

• Respect the people you discuss or debate with. Disagree strongly on an issue and demolish his or her arguments and viewpoints, but do not attack the person.

• Do not call your opponent names or declare that an opponent is a moron or idiot. People reading the thread can see who has the better argument. They can also sort out who can counter an argument forcefully and respectfully and who resorts to a personal attack instead. You too are under scrutiny by forum readers.

• Inappropriate language, cursing and shocking statements will not be tolerated. Argue your position in a calm and reasonable manner. Respectable debate does not allow disdain for others and will result in post deletion or if repeated offences result in a ban.

• Guard yourself against making groundless statements. Logic or evidence must support every position you take. Logic includes everything from complex arguments to cause-and-effect. Evidence can take the form of examples, statistics, and quotations from authorities in the field. Supported arguments stand until refuted. Unsupported arguments do not deserve a response and might as well not exist.

• Ignore an opponent’s spelling, grammar, or insignificant deviations from fact. Your opponent is most likely correct and their error has nothing to do with the overall truth of the proposition they defend. Do not make a fool of yourself by being a sore loser.

• Do your own research. Provide quotes or excerpts to support you arguments and include links to the sources you cite.

• Majorities do not rule a debate. The majority has no more right to silence the opinion of a minority through disrespectful, improper argument than the minority would have to engage in the same tactics. You will not win a debate by ignoring the advice above.

[T.G.]

Thanks for that. A lot of "debate" in these forums has certainly strayed from these basic principles. Especially with respect to personal attacks and insults.

[backhoe]

We used to sell a poster at our stores:

Be sure Brain
is in gear
before engaging
Mouth

[styky]

Well said WV well said. Now lets just see if we can rise to the occasion.

[Winston Smith]

Bump

[ivbinconned]

Well said!

[Jean]

Awesome post, West Viking!

I have to admit, on some occasions I totally failed to follow those guidelines

[styky]

Awesome post, West Viking!

I have to admit, on some occasions I totally failed to follow those guidelines

You and me both

[WestViking]

It is a guide to improvement, not a prescription for perfection. If we followed all of the rules all of the time and never failed, the line-ups for sainthood would get overly long and boring. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve our ability to engage in civil discourse though.

[J.B. Stone]

It is a guide to improvement, not a prescription for perfection. If we followed all of the rules all of the time and never failed, the line-ups for sainthood would get overly long and boring. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve our ability to engage in civil discourse though.

While I find your concept a very NOBLE cause....

There's still the problem of folks who make outlandish accusations and false claims of guilt based on Political Rhetoric.

They have NO intention of "debating".....just hit & run "arguments"......

[Peter O'Donnell]

Just wanted to comment that things seem to have improved around Free Dominion over this past week, and the credit goes equally to everyone involved. Thanks, it goes without saying that mods and administrators here have a lot on their minds these days, and so we are thankful for the co-operation.

[Maikeru]

Just wanted to comment that things seem to have improved around Free Dominion over this past week, and the credit goes equally to everyone involved. Thanks, it goes without saying that mods and administrators here have a lot on their minds these days, and so we are thankful for the co-operation.

The fly in the ointment, Peter, is that posts have been deleted.

It's one thing to bar members from further posting to a thread, or even banning them from posting to FreeDominion altogether, and quite another to remove posts that are other than obvious spam.

I have no problem whatsoever with being unable to edit my opinions - the preview button is the best cure for that lack - but when moderators start arbitrarily removing postings it casts a pall over the site as to what was said by whom and when.

If moderators have the ability to delete posts, why not the folks who made them ?
Some time ago, Connie mentioned that a poster had begun to delete all the posts they made to FreeDominion, and shortly thereafter the edit function ceased to be available.

I'm not arguing that our gracious hosts should not have the ability to prevent/censor offending posts, but doing so is one small step removed from Jay Currie and Ezra Levant's practise of examining posts before mounting - one giant step for a kind man such as yourself...

[Peter O'Donnell]

I think that the right decisions were taken, and I've been told that by the two people whose opinions actually matter in this situation (as well as a number of others whose views I respect).

As far as I am aware, there is no implied total freedom on this forum to post whatever you want with no expectation of moderation. The fact that there very, very seldom is external moderation is the result of three things, the basic decency and intelligence of our members, the commitment we have as a moderating team to open and frank discussion, and perhaps a lack of time to read every possibly offending post.

I have posted thousands of times on SDA, Ezra Levant and Jay Currie (in total, not more than ten on Jay Currie yet), and I have never seen a case where they moderated my comments. They read them and then they posted them. So I have not come away thinking that pre-moderation is necessarily a very heavy-handed thing, but if we had it here, it would drive men to drink, that's all I can say. I would rather just clean up the big spills of Exxon Valdez magnitude once a month, and leave all the leaky oil gasket type cases to their own best correction, the oblivion that time brings to all internet posts, unless of course they happen to reference a certain somebody.

[WestViking]

It is a guide to improvement, not a prescription for perfection. If we followed all of the rules all of the time and never failed, the line-ups for sainthood would get overly long and boring. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve our ability to engage in civil discourse though.

While I find your concept a very NOBLE cause....

There's still the problem of folks who make outlandish accusations and false claims of guilt based on Political Rhetoric.

They have NO intention of "debating".....just hit & run "arguments"......

Most of our members are astute enough to recognize trolls when they appear. The guidelines also serve as a filter for fools and the self-important. Unsubstantiated claims are not worthy of a response whether they are outlandish or not.

Our members can and do demolish weak or ill-considered arguments, opinions and position without attacking the poster and risking a flame war. If you think about it, telling a fool he is a fool is unlikely to raise his level of cognitive awareness. Sometimes, stating the obvious is not worth the effort.

[J.B. Stone]

If you think about it, telling a fool he is a fool is unlikely to raise his level of cognitive awareness. Sometimes, stating the obvious is not worth the effort.

“If you send a damned fool to Washington, and you don’t tell them he’s a damned fool, they’ll never find out.” – Mark Twain, 1883