About the New Forum Rules

[Aerion Brightflame]

So why do we need a rule in place to tell people not to literally sheet post?
 

Why can the mods just not deal with it with there own discretion? Like they have done up to now? Why do we need rules that will remain vaguely worded I imagine (Because they will boil down to 'at the discretion of the mod team' anyway) instead? 

[~British Soul~]

@British Why did you bring that back up, and why do you remember that?

It's something that remained burned into my memory.

 

As for British, I don't seem to remember (maybe I was on hiatus or just didn't care) but that is definitely inappropriate. 

It was, considering how frequently it happened at the time.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So why do we need a rule in place to tell people not to literally sheet post?

 

Why can the mods just not deal with it with there own discretion? Like they have done up to now? Why do we need rules that will remain vaguely worded I imagine (Because they will boil down to 'at the discretion of the mod team' anyway) instead? 

It's mostly because it kept happening over and over. This is more so from what it seems a way to keep those who consistently break the rules away.

[Flame Dragon]

So why do we need a rule in place to tell people not to literally sheet post?

 

Why can the mods just not deal with it with there own discretion? Like they have done up to now? Why do we need rules that will remain vaguely worded I imagine (Because they will boil down to 'at the discretion of the mod team' anyway) instead?

A lot of the stuff that we're trying to do is just reinforcing stuff that was already in the rules to start with. The issue is people have been getting a way with a bit more than they should have for a while now. It wouldn't seem fair if we all of a sudden started warning people for doing something they had been doing for months without so much as a word before hand. The rules certainly should have been cleaner and that is something we are working to improve right now.

[Arctic55]

FYI: I'm posting this without reading any of this thread.

 

SEXUAL CONTENT 

 

(this section is currently being revised.)
 
Effectively immediately, any form of sexual content (regardless of discussion or images) are forbidden on this site. These include, but aren't limited to the following.

• Images with abnormally large breasts (who defines this? this is completely arbitrary), lack of clothing in certain areas or otherwise nude figures (nudes I understand, but bare legs, thighs, and arms?  again, besides nudes and genitalia, this is completely arbitrary). Females in standard bikinis will be allowed (oh, thanks for clarifying that, cause it sounded like skin besides face/hands/feet was banned). 
• Images that emphasize the ass, breasts, genitalia or otherwise depict figures in provocative/suggestive positions (hmmm... if your talking visible genitalia or sex positions, I don't really understand this.  Don't get me wrong, I don't condone this kind of stuff, but again, that's completely arbitrary and those pictures are not necessarily bad if they person is still clothed).
• Any forms of sexual discussion, or otherwise implications of sexual favors/acts (kinks, masturbating or other adult topics). Discussion about orientation is permissible (so... discussion of sexual orientation could be considered sexual discussion of kinks... I mean, what if I say I like to combine X, Y, and Z?  That technically a sexual orientation but also a kink... again this is arbitrary).

A reminder that we have members/guests who are under the age of 18, and as a family-friendly site, this kind of content cannot be allowed, lest this site faces legal action. If you have any doubts about a picture or thread content breaking the PG-13 threshold, please PM a moderator beforehand.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are just a few thoughts (underlined above) about the new rules.  I mean, they are going in the right direction, but as a person who tries to use logic in law, I thought I saw a few disconnects.

[Dad]

Any further rules and regulations questions regarding updated debates rules should be directed here.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Add a 'where appropriate' to the rule about sources and we gucci. 

 

Not every possible base topic for a debate is going to require two sources, and sometimes only one will be appropriate simply because the debate at hand is the specific attitude or viewpoint towards a specific idea. 

[Goose]

See my other thread, you can find it.

 

Also were you really unable to edit the other rules thread? Do we really need two rules threads for three rules? 

[Slinky]

The "source" rule is a load of crap. The majority of debates are opinionated, and would have no source because of it, and sometimes even delve into hypotheticals, which again won't have sources. A source rule limits the kinds of discussions that can take place, solely because a lot of topics just don't have sources.

[Dad]

Add a 'where appropriate' to the rule about sources and we gucci. 

 

Not every possible base topic for a debate is going to require two sources, and sometimes only one will be appropriate simply because the debate at hand is the specific attitude or viewpoint towards a specific idea. 

 

I think this is a fair point.  I think things like the U.S. election thread are a good example.  You don't need two sources for that because. . .well. . .it's not only everywhere, but one source sort of sums it up as far as the topic goes.  I'll be taking this into consideration.

 

See my other thread, you can find it.

 

Also were you really unable to edit the other rules thread? Do we really need two rules threads for three rules? 

 

You mean in the News Section?  Or the front of General?

 

 

The "source" rule is a load of crap. The majority of debates are opinionated, and would have no source because of it, and sometimes even delve into hypotheticals, which again won't have sources. A source rule limits the kinds of discussions that can take place, solely because a lot of topics just don't have sources.

 

I disagree.  Most if not all debates start somewhere.  Honestly if we can't find a single source that starts the discussion, what are we debating?  Hell, even religious debates have sources, and those are among the most opinionated.  And I'm not asking for sources every time you rebut.  I'm asking for two sources (subject to change) in the op.  You can delve as much as you want in the thread as long as you don't get too far off track.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean Tom gives sources a ton when he posts. Upholding a greater standard here isn't really a detriment 

[Slinky]

Morality is a big one. views on morality change from person to person. It won't have a source, and we've already had a few topics based on morality.

 

Here's some other debates that won't really have a reliable source.

 

- What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

- Does God exist?

- Is it all a dream?

- Gun control (you can bring up sources as examples to support your point, but it's mostly going to be fully opinionated. even articles such as "why gun control is bad/good" wouldn't be a source because the article in itself would be opinionated).

[~~~~]

- Does God exist?

I dunno, I think people are likely to bring up a source when arguing for this. In fact, they'll likely throw out several quotes from that one source.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I mean Tom gives sources a ton when he posts. Upholding a greater standard here isn't really a detriment 

I give sources for topics and points where it's appropriate. There are topics where sources simply don't exist. Like the ones Slinky listed. 

 

Encouraging sources is great, forcing sources limits the amount of options we have to discuss. If it's a topic that warrants a source, Dad asking for one to be provided is fine, just as people should ask for sources when people quote figures. But we shouldn't have X number of sources required to post a topic. 

[Goose]

Of course I mean the debate section.  Theres a rules thread with almost the exact same title as your rules thread literally right below the thread you posted...  You baffle me man.

 

Anyway, like I said in my other thread that you apparently were unable to locate...., a lot of the best most interesting arguments of all time had no sources.  The Communist Manifest, the Myth of Er, the Ring of Gyges, the Veil of Ignorance, the Leviathan.  Your rule is a needless hoop to jump through in a lot of cases and you practically admit it yourself.  Of course I /can/ find a source that's relevant but if I have my own moral argument, my own treaties, it's very possible that there is no source that will actually strengthen what I have to say (or at the very least I didn't need a source to come to my conclusion).  This very much is a rule for the sake of having a rule.

Here's a good example.  This thread (http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/353692-more-ethics-can-it-be-justified-to-kill-a-man-who-isnt-an-intentional-threat/page-2) features two pages of solid debate and not a single person cited a single source.  Why should they have had to jump through extra hoops?

 

Also another point, why should only the OP have to jump through these hoops?  That's very arbitrary.  Definitely wouldn't survive any real judicial review.

[Dad]

Anyway, like I said in my other thread that you apparently were unable to locate...., a lot of the best most interesting arguments of all time had no sources.  The Communist Manifest, the Myth of Er, the Ring of Gyges, the Veil of Ignorance, the Leviathan.  Your rule is a needless hoop to jump through in a lot of cases and you practically admit it yourself.  Of course I /can/ find a source that's relevant but if I have my own moral argument, my own treaties, it's very possible that there is no source that will actually strengthen what I have to say (or at the very least I didn't need a source to come to my conclusion).  This very much is a rule for the sake of having a rule.

Here's a good example.  This thread (http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/353692-more-ethics-can-it-be-justified-to-kill-a-man-who-isnt-an-intentional-threat/page-2) features two pages of solid debate and not a single person cited a single source.  Why should they have had to jump through extra hoops?

 

Also another point, why should only the OP have to jump through these hoops?  That's very arbitrary.  Definitely wouldn't survive any real judicial review.

 

I'd be fine with this then.  But upon requesting a source where permissible, the OP should be able to produce.  The reason this was placed on the OP is because he starts the thread.  I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a hoop.  More like a little time and effort into making the discussion less of a mess.  We saw how well sourceless OPs worked.  That's what I'm concerned about.

 

EDIT:  Whoops.  Fixing that mishap.  Still getting used to ModerationCP.

[Goose]

I'd be fine with this then.  But upon requesting a source where permissible, the OP should be able to produce.  The reason this was placed on the OP is because he starts the thread.  I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a hoop.  More like a little time and effort into making the discussion less of a mess.  We saw how well sourceless OPs worked.  That's what I'm concerned about.

 

EDIT:  Whoops.  Fixing that mishap.  Still getting used to ModerationCP.

 

What does that even mean? Why not just require people to source their arguments in the same way an academic would need to source their argument?  We aren't babies here and we don't need someone to link us to an article about the history of the topic.

 

Obviously then it wouldn't just apply to OP and wouldn't be arbitrary.

[Dad]

What does that even mean? Why not just require people to source their arguments in the same way an academic would need to source their argument?  We aren't babies here and we don't need someone to link us to an article about the history of the topic.

 

Obviously then it wouldn't just apply to OP and wouldn't be arbitrary.

 

It means the rule was in place to require the OP to do actual research and "show his work" instead of spouting off a nonsensical argument with nothing to back it up.  The rule was removed because apparently providing sources is too hard for YCM.  And we also clarified that "providing source upon request" is just as simple.  So what are you confused about?

[Dad]

As of 10/10/2016, one additional rule has been made in the Debates Section Rules.  This is more of a courtesy and section cleanliness rule, and shouldn't affect content much, if at all other than cutting back on double posts.

 

You can find that change here.

[Dad]

Rule update incoming.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I predict one side or the other is gonna be very upset by this one

[Dad]

I predict one side or the other is gonna be very upset by this one

 

Shouldn't even have to spell this out, tbh.

[Tourmaline]

I predict one side or the other is gonna be very upset by this one

You know exactly which.

[Blake]

Change is incredibly minor. Think of it as Problem-Solving Card Text.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Shouldn't even have to spell this out, tbh.

Some fuzzy fuzzy law about "ad hom" that's gonna end up being enforced in a cute matter?

You know exactly which.

Yup