(December 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: rev,
You'll note that I posted this in "Philosophy" and not in "Announcements". This isn't some new kind of enforcement of the rules; this is merely a diagram which shows what everyone should be aiming for when trying to have a decent discussion / debate. You are free to call people names if you want to, as long as the name-calling doesn't escalate into a flame war where all you are doing is name-calling. What we'd prefer is if you were to make an actual point along with the name-calling, and what we'd really prefer is if you kept the name-calling out of it altogether.
I'm not denying that people are emotional; we all let the "heat of battle" get to us, myself included. This is why I said we should be "aiming" for the top three. We may occasionally let slip the odd bottom one, but if we at least try to keep discussions to the top three, we'll have better discussions because of it.
See there.. R is a reasonable and rational person after all.
I am aware that it was posted in the philosophy thread, but i didnt see where it was meant just for the philosophy thread
Quote:Everyone should be aiming for the top three. The middle one is acceptable, but it doesn't really move the discussion along. The bottom three have no place here.
Sorry, my mistake, but from the original post you can see why anyone could have went that way. Still doesnt minimize the impact of my questions.
What you post here sounds better, but still is subject to arbitrary rulings. From what it sounds to me its less about logic and more about popularity in Staff decisions, which is normal when it comes to moderators on any site.
When I was moderator of Freethinkers and atheists of Virginia, I made it a point to put in the rules that seniority and popularity would greatly influence our judgements. All of the mods agreed, and most of the members actually appreciated the honesty. We specifically said that we like logic, but that wasnt a factor in our judgements upon moderation
