PnQ'ers

I know some, or more like most here, don't enjoy a bit of a controversal debate or discussion. I've read various posts here stating that we should stop debating politics and religion because it gets us no where and brings nothing but arguments (and frightens others away?) and while I do respect their opinion I don't quite agree. I, for one, don't like or find threads about songs, tv programs or movies quite valuable or even needed. Accordingly, I don't participate in them. I wouldn't for example go on attacking the thread, it's posters or participants.

This forum once held a different and interesting number of debates. Do I miss these days? Yes. Have things changed? A lot. However, my suggestion here is a bit of a common ground - keep your nice, safe and friendly threads but don't take someone else's right to discuss something a bit more real, productive and concerning (to them at least) than what you're posting, instead ignore the thread and don't participate in it.

I understand not everything is everyone's cup of tea but let's not apply our standards, tastes and values on others, please.

I think people have forgotten how to properly debate.. instead we see hatred, racism and completely disgusting comments/personal attacks that spew onto each thread thereafter. That's something that drives people away for sure.

The limits of a "proper" debate differs from one person to another, Britt. Still, a person's failure to debate properly shouldn't be held against debating in general. Racism, hatred and disgusting comments are part of our reality, sadly. Hiding or avoiding it doesn't and wouldn't help anyone. It's still there anyway.

Those who will particpate in such debates are grown up enough to handle the consequences of their words, which they will. All the same those who can not handle others' opinions can shy away from such debates.

I understand what you are saying... but when it breaks the rules of the site, that particular piece should not be allowed. I guess what I'm saying is I wish mods would intervene when rules have been broken. It's a mod issue, not a debate issue. I like debates :)

That does not drive some people away from Fox News. Sometimes sharing feelings does lead to a better understanding. All voters are not like the extremist they elect and can find common ground . Americans whine and cry about a kid trespassing on their land while in a war torn area people see their family being killed and ordered around like they have no rights . I have learned so much about reallity if we return to our fantasy eutopia I will just have to read the short comments on facebook the feel connected to the real world

I wish mods would actually not intervene in such debates as mods but as members only - if they want to, that is. It's very easy to cry mods when someone writes something we dislike, it's harder to challenge and debate. Yes, we'll bump heads at times, it's unavoidable I guess. Still it should not be prohibited.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying..

I don't mean when it's something we dislike. I mean site rules that have been broken - personal, disprectful attacks have no place in a debate, nor does blatant racism.

Mods are here to intervene when rules are broken. Now they shouldn't? Then why have them?

I agree a bit with both of you.

Nor I think good debates about serious topics are valuable and enjoyable and its good when they go well but it seems we can't seem to have them lately without, as Britt said, them falling into personal attacks, getting off topic, etc. Some people don't seem to be able to debate.

Maybe a weekly-ish debate thread could be an idea? A different topic/situation each week to debate, if people descend to personal attacks or totally irrelevant posts just ban them from posting in the thread. But then if that were to happen there would probably be people feeling hard done by, whos to judge what is appropriate to post/say, etc. and thus starting more drama.

It'd be good if people could be thick-skinned enough and level-headed enough to realise that others will disagree with them and react maturely, not sure if that would be possible but we could give it a go I guess. A disclaimer at the top of a debate thread might be needed!

The rules on the site have been modified so many times someone with a PhD in P and Q still has to know the mod team to be able to express the feeling they wish to share without fear of losing all the time they have invested in the site . It is the most interesting posters that are driven away . I was thinking when one labels a cyberspace" Discussion Forum" it would be a darn good place to have a discussion. There is going to be logically fallacy but then again we are international and need not resort to second amendment remedies

I actually quite understand what you're saying, Britt. I just rather blunt honesty than fake respect under the edge of a mods' gun/powers. It solves nothing and adds nothing. I've been always for little moderation as possible, it's no surprise. It's not for everyone, I understand.

Why have rules? To protect people, mostly. In this case their feelings - that's why I said those who can't handle the whole thing can just ignore that one thread.

Colm, I was going to actually proposea having a weekly thread that discusses a serious issue and is not to be moderated by mods - at all (unless people start singing inside to fill up posts). We could call it the Adult thread or 18 plus (pun intended) disclaimers and all. People who are interested in a more, er, moderated? thread needn't even click on it. Perhaps an enter/post at your own responsibility, even. Explosive area? Can't, really, think of more warnings.

So now we can't enjoy debate threads if we don't feel like being personally attacked? I enjoy debate threads, and I have thick skin, but who likes being personally attacked because of their views?

Count me out, I guess.. and a lot others. Sad. This goes back to driving people away, even those who aren't sensitive. I don't have time for petty attacks.

Mike: it doesn't really matter what the rules state, members never follow them and mods rarely reprimand.

Have a moderated debate thread, Britt. You'll be the thread poster - state the rules of the thread. However, if I, for example, want to open a thread and want a more open, less moderated debate then I can open one with these stated as well. You as a poster can choose to either enter/participate or not.

We debate these matters all the time without mods around, unless someone has mods around everywhere they go, that is. Why is this different?

"Mike: it doesn't really matter what the rules state, members never follow them and mods rarely reprimand" lol The less the better

.Fran Marie Arouet known by his nom de plume Voltaire was a French Enlightenment writer, sometimes given credit for the phrase "though I may not agree with what you are saying I will defend to death your right to say it". I do not agree with the philosophy believe as I do or go to hell. We are told not to bring up the past but some members can get by with it . I have thousands of hours invested in this sight and all I ask for is a warning before I am deleted if I am treated equally that will be a bonus

Nor: the difference is, I would like members to be able to be mature enough to debate without personal attacks and breaking rules so it encourages more members to come out. Clearly I'm wrong here, and silly me to think a site should follow the rules ;)

I see I'm the minority here, so I'll just go :)

Mike: I understand what you're saying and thats my point is I want it to be fair. I don't feel it is.

I have always said I have no problem with most of the rules .I cannot by rule cite an actually example .
We should congratulate ourselves for conducting a civil discussion without "An ad hominem" (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, Allow me to use a hyperbole suppose I am losing an argument or just being made to feel my feelings are stupid the only course left is to attack the character of the one that does not feel like me. The thread where I was offended runs out so I make a thread to magnify the lowest points of emotion sharing to vilify my opponent . That should not be allowed or should it?

Not at all, Britt. I'd like to see less of personal attacks , too, but not by threat or fear of the mods.

It's also not about minority and majority - we're not voting, just trying to make this forum a bit of something for everyone. Your opinion counts and I'm sure many feel the same as you and will tune in in a few. It's I that'll be the minority by the end of this thread. Guess I'll need to call for minorities' rights from now *winks*

The problem is there will always be personal attacks, because some people just cannot debate with maturity.

I am happy to join in any debate and offer my opinion, but I know that it is exactly that, an opinion and not everyone will see things from my POV.

Why not handle such attacks as an opinion, which it is, no more no less?

I do not really care about being attacked personally, it doesn't bother me, either I am thick skinned or an idiot, whichever!!

I like your idea, a personal attack could be just an opinion.

I will go with that.

(BTW I was guilty of singing in a thread once, my apologies to all)

If you figure that out, tell me. I still can't decide which one I am, either. Perhaps a little bit overconfident in my own skin that I don't, and probably wouldn't, care either way.

Brave confession. Perhaps we'll need to open two threads - one for decision and the other so all of you hidden talents can sing (and push our thread down?). I'm for fun for everyone.

When you become famous we can use that against you ..just kidding.. I think at one time some mods had a dream that these forums could attract established poets and would have loved to keep the fun and humor in the fun and homur forum. There are so many reasons why people come to P and Q
I really think I have leaned a lot here

"1. Most important rule: be respectful to other members. You can debate and disagree without being disrespectful or name-calling. Failure to be respectful may result in penalties.
-Minor swear words will be tolerated if not directed at other members, and if not used excessively."

It seems to me that the rules allows for great leeway in arguments. We do rarely intervene; the mods have not forbade any topics from discussion other than for a short period of cooling off after some nuclear blowup.

If a mod comes on & decries the direction a thread is going, it is not a censure but a suggestion to "take a breath" before losing control of emotions and crossing the line.

I knew I could count on Larry to point out that many people can make a darn good living by formal argument

.And now a word from our sponsors

Rule #4 No advertisements of any kind are allowed in the forums.
That you Janis for providing a safe haven for our civil discussions

Thing is Larry that between freedom of speech and an accusation of racism and hate speech is quite a thin hair - which depends on whose stating and who's receiving the statement. The infamous movie about the prophet few months back, for example, is quite a good example.

What I am asking for is can we have a decision thread that is, as per request of thread poster, not to be moderated by mods. Of course such will be stated clearly so as those who are a little more sensitive than perhaps me, Hellon, Darren..etc wouldn't participate if they don't want to and of course no one will mention them or bring anything that has to do with them in there?

What I am asking for is can we have a decision thread that is, as per request of thread poster, not to be moderated by mods. Of course such will be stated clearly so as those who are a little more sensitive than perhaps me, Hellon, Darren..etc wouldn't participate if they don't want to and of course no one will mention them or bring anything that has to do with them in there?

^^
Seems interesting idea, though maybe asking for a little much, you see if there is no moderation what's to stop people bringing other people or threads into it? Also I hope it wouldn't turn into a free-for-all with a hall pass to insult each-other, but it is an interesting idea and it'd be good to try it I guess.

I don't see the point in having an un-moderated debate thread. I get why you might want it, but there's really no need. We see a lot of people butting heads over their views, but too often it comes down to name calling which is absolutely ridiculous.

I like a mature debate, but when people start throwing sand in each other eyes it just feels childish. Also we have younger people on the site. Pretty sure there are laws involving '18 or older' threads that we wouldn't be able to take care of unless we could change the site's coding.

Plus, as Larry stated, the moderating on this site is very lenient.

I recently recieved a PM from a moderator politely asking me to remove a swear word from one of my posts. That is how you moderate the website without shutting down discussions.

I have been attacked quite savagely a few times on this website and I've even been given penalty points once or twice. The thing that sticks in my memory as being the most annoying was when the "old" mod team used to just vanish posts and whole threads or locks threads because they were getting a bit heated.

The way things are right now is the best things have ever been here, moderator wise.

I will admit as I have many times that I am wired differently than neuro-typical people. That is why I brought an old thread up to prove most members have not taken me seriously and that is fine . The topic was God of Moses with a slightly different twist to it. Most of the members that responded made me the topic rather than to humor me. There seems to be an unwritten rule that bringing up the past is disrespectful
It reflects a historian's desire to rewrite history to protect the feelings of those of us who admit they have made mistakes. I brought this up in the " I will not be silenced thread" thinking I was right on topic
I was not trying to trash the thread the way my God of Moses thread was. Some mods would accuse me of not wanting to move on but our argument usually ends up in a troll contest and is never allowed to get to any conclusion except lets all pretend to understand each others feelings while we pick someone to pick on

PS I know Keven believes it is creepy for me to recall old threads but that is how folks with a mild form of Autism are wired I cannot help it and if that offends anyone just tell me before you put a stigma on me by publically criticizing my nature

It seems that Kevin , Jordan , and I are the only active members from that thread that have not deleted our accounts

BTW no one ever anwered my question though it was over five years ago

I would love to challenge my friend Kevin to a debate on which should be taken more seriously? I would like opinions that do not invoke the wrath of the mods also

(A.) God of Moses's Ten commandments

(B ) P.Q. Rules and Guidelines
lol

My opinion (EDITED FOR CLARITY) - Agree that debates on anything and everything are wonderful, but only as long as you are respectful to others opinion and know how to debate (the human brain needs to have a certain level of maturity to do this). Lately the personal attacks have been disgusting..... with mods sitting on the sidelines doing very little as existing rules have been slackened, or in some case not applied at all ( select obvious cases), which in turn invites more of the same.
This is the very reason I do not find posting in debates any more fun........no point in hanging around and be the subject of personal insults by 15-18 year olds, when I have better things to do in life. It is not that I am not thick skinned, or I fear them, but I find that some people at this age are still immature in the skills of debating and freely post disrespectful opinions on people rather than the topic, sometimes repeatedly, to muscle, ridicule the other person and control or divert the discussion....just like one would expect from your own teen. Scientifically, the brain at this age is easily swayed by raging hormones, in opposite directions, like the teen love-hate-love-hate cycling ....parents who have teens would have experienced this, a sort of bipolar behavior innate to the developing brain. This is because emotions reign supreme in some teens, before the brain learns how to control the "tongue" by perceiving the distinction of good from the bad (or what is acceptable and what is not) becomes clearer in the early to mid 20's.

However, if the mods would moderate the thread a bit more closely, specifically looking for personal attacks or unacceptable language, instead of allowing them to destroy the thread/topic, people will be more respectful to others. On the other hand, totally unmoderated threads will continue to invite more and more disrespectful language, once the person/s know he/she can safely tread boundaries without getting reprimanded. I don't recommend immediate suspension, but an exclusion of the violator from that thread with a warning that if he/she continues to post on this thread again, he/she may be subject to a stiffer penalty, such as points or suspensions, whichever is applicable. This will likely keep people in line, hopefully and prevent unpleasantaries, so all of us can learn and truly appreciate the educational value of debating.

One middle ground to the opposite solutions may be to let the OP of the thread determine what is offensive in his/her thread, who in turn requests the mods via PM to exclude/remove the offending person/comment/s from the debate, if they are "personally (not principally) disrespectful" to others. This could assist the undecided/lenient mod to make a better determination when things get out of hand (so often the case these days). This way, instead of the mod/s exercising their judgment alone they have shared the decision with the OP of the thread whose thread was hijacked by offender/s.
Just, some thoughts...

I agree with Nour on this

I'm not sure where I stand. I don't think the site owner, Janis, would be OK with a non-moderated forum. He put us in this site to moderate pretty much everything and everyone, no real exceptions.

We've stepped back on moderating the forums significantly in the last year or two. Most of you are happy with this, but many of you are not. I'm afraid there's no way to make everyone happy. If we can compromise, at least we won't be totally dissatisfied?

Continue discussing. Maybe we can find a middle ground that nobody hates :)

Continue discussing. Maybe we can find a middle ground that nobody hates :)

^^

With respect, we will be discussing until the cows come home then. Can't we just do a trial run, then there will be less ifs and buts and maybes to discuss.

I would be down to do a trial run with Janis' permission. He hasn't been around lately though... at least, not to my knowledge.

If the other mods want to do a trial run without Janis' permission, I won't argue.

There is a reason even presidential debates have moderators and it isn't because the candidates are likely to start calling names and swearing at each other.

Think about that, the fact every professional discussion the world over has a moderator. They don't stifle the discussion, they keep it moving along and encourage fairness.

I know mods, some of them at least, have been less strict than before which is good in my opinion and that's mainly why my first post was addressed to members who seem to be filling up the mods place at times, evaluating the worthiness of a thread in accordance to their tastes or views.

I'm far from asking for a free pass for people who insult each other or a forum which is totally unmoderadated - just one weekly thread/topic that its rules are decided by the thread poster. This is not the first time for such to happen anyway, as I recall we had even "attack a mod" threads, for example, which weren't moderated at all before. No one mentioned janis then although some of those posting in this thread participated in them. Now, I'm not asking for an attack anyone thread at all, just a serious decision thread without members or mods jumping at people's opinions to the posted question or debate.

As to having everyone agree on it i think everyone here knows that's not going to happen anytime soon if at all, like how some don't agree, too, to what's happened to this exact forum. We all have different tastes and interests, I don't see why everyone can't give the other a bit more space around here.

Http://youtu.be/FjxNhMV9yg8

I go to a virtual pub online at allpoetry that is unmoderated and somehow see the humor in a Ausie Christian basher who calls himself Boson Higgs or maybe Higgs Boson (God Particle).Anyway Higgs refers to a group as christianist . I want to take an opportunity to tell all of my Muslim brothers and sisters, Jewish brothers and sisters, theist or atheist brothers and sisters. That I am sorry for the trouble any zealots or radicals have caused past or present . I would like to thank any faith that has prayed to a Higher Power for praying for the faithful of my Lord .
http://youtu.be/TWgEUGnuwpk
I am praying for peace
I also wanted to add that most of us whose hearts have been won by The Princess know that her efforts have been to refine the discussions not trash them

I pray peace flows through Syriac

The only thing that I don't really get is ...why should it be an unmoderated thread? Can't we debate without eating each other alive? I've seen mods already kind of overlooking some of those pitiful arguments that usually happen somewhere in the middle of a religion thread. We can't ask for more. We don't want the forums to turn into chaos, we just want to debate. Well, now, I don't mean that we should fake our feelings towards a subject or towards each other; we all are biased at some point and we all get uncomfortable when our points of view are being proven wrong, we can't hide that. It's just...it would be a lot more pleasant if we could show that and try to explain it in a less offensive way. And by 'offensive', I don't mean curse words. Like.. polite terms that are meant to mock a sensitive side of my believes can hurt and insult me more than a 'F you'.

Anyway, I could be totally wrong. I'm nothing but an ignorant teenager whose hormones still take control over her, right? :)

Oh and by the way, if some have the idea to put an age limit then I object, there should be no age limit. A teenage has the right to debate as much as a 50 year old. Or it could go both ways, people who can debate should be older than 18, but also younger than 50. Yknow, there are annoying hormones too when one grows old.

"Anyway, I could be totally wrong. I'm nothing but an ignorant teenager whose hormones still take control over her, right? :)"

^ Right! But glad to see someone finally admitting to it....haha! Must be the influence of the mods or the CLUB or maybe the "turning 18" syndrome! Though some other talented people will not "turn 18" that easily.

The "F...you" is a "sensitive" word, you know, just comes "naturally" to the Tourette-teen brain at this age, until the inhibitory/analytic cross-connections begin forming (generally by age 20 in girls, and 22-30 in boys) and teach one how to "moderate" the "Tourette" within. Grandiose expressions/appreciations and personal attacks are like love and hate, are very similar to a parent or a parent-figure love-hate display (but in public here), when unmoderated.

"A teenage has the right to debate as much as a 50 year old."

^Sure, if the right connections have formed. But, if the Tourette in the teen becomes abusive, the parent has a right to give a "time out", like it or not. The middle ground is "go meditate like the Buddha" (still standing tall behind Larry, though the Taliban and its medieval predecessors the Mughals tried hard to behead it over the centuries).

"..... but also younger than 50".....that will effectively exclude Larry, Michael, Hellon, Nicko and more, who often bring out the Buddha (enlightenment) within the teenager, by gently or "not so gently" nudging.

I think one might be able to rename the "time out" room to "The Buddha room"! A more honorable name, what do you think?

Importantly, give the thread OP the control to "call out" the person as well via the mods.

Alright, Jane and Mike have swayed me. I'm all for testing this out now.

"Importantly, give the thread OP the control to "call out" the person as well via the mods."

Great idea.

Anyone ever try starting a Club for this?

The Fight Club.

___________________________

Before agreeing to allow a test run the mods need to know exactly how the rule 1 is to be changed for this purpose?

Here it is again:
"1. Most important rule: be respectful to other members. You can debate and disagree without being disrespectful or name-calling. Failure to be respectful may result in penalties.
-Minor swear words will be tolerated if not directed at other members, and if not used excessively."

Also, still no profanity in the thread title, avatar names etc.