I really wonder about people who come to a debate site and then take personal offense when some one debates them, because they don't really know how to debate.
They see it as just a forum for self expression and get all slighted when they are called on it.
I'm sorry, but there's no "free pass" around here for posting one's views unchallenged.
If you feel strongly enough about it, then it's up to you to provide the proof of your argument and attempt to negate the other person's argument.
Just because you make a convincing argument, there is nothing in the rules that says a member has to concede to you, and if they don't, that is not personally attacking.
Now, I realize some of the problem can be related to the fact that we do refer people here from CS when they post a controversial topic over there.
We don't always take into account that the person may not have strong debating skills when we are diverting them to fratching, but it's a bit of a price we pay, I guess, to keep the bickering off CS.
We do allow for that, though, to a certain degree, I think, but every once in a while, there is an issue with someone seeing normal debate as a personal attack.
I think Boozy explained things very well in this thread.
Our job as moderators is to step in if a member is genuinely obnoxious and resorts to obvious personal attacks or uses wording that is actually insulting.
To use an analogy, we will not step into the sandbox and start slapping hands just because someone doesn't have the ability to fling the sand as quickly and as accurately.
We are of the opinion that, if you're stepping into the box, then be prepared to get a bit dirty and learn to deflect it back to the other person.
If you can't do that, then step out of the box, please, and take it as a lesson learned.
On the other hand, if someone decides to toss a bit of mud, then we will jump all over that person and remove them from the box for playing dirty and messing up the box for everybody else.
Does that make sense?
They see it as just a forum for self expression and get all slighted when they are called on it.
I'm sorry, but there's no "free pass" around here for posting one's views unchallenged.
If you feel strongly enough about it, then it's up to you to provide the proof of your argument and attempt to negate the other person's argument.
Just because you make a convincing argument, there is nothing in the rules that says a member has to concede to you, and if they don't, that is not personally attacking.
Now, I realize some of the problem can be related to the fact that we do refer people here from CS when they post a controversial topic over there.
We don't always take into account that the person may not have strong debating skills when we are diverting them to fratching, but it's a bit of a price we pay, I guess, to keep the bickering off CS.
We do allow for that, though, to a certain degree, I think, but every once in a while, there is an issue with someone seeing normal debate as a personal attack.
I think Boozy explained things very well in this thread.
Our job as moderators is to step in if a member is genuinely obnoxious and resorts to obvious personal attacks or uses wording that is actually insulting.
To use an analogy, we will not step into the sandbox and start slapping hands just because someone doesn't have the ability to fling the sand as quickly and as accurately.
We are of the opinion that, if you're stepping into the box, then be prepared to get a bit dirty and learn to deflect it back to the other person.
If you can't do that, then step out of the box, please, and take it as a lesson learned.
On the other hand, if someone decides to toss a bit of mud, then we will jump all over that person and remove them from the box for playing dirty and messing up the box for everybody else.
Does that make sense?
Comment