Civility subsection suggestion

[Tiberius]

I disagree. People don't like like a joke if they don't use the Debate forum. This is just a slightly more relaxed Debate forum, it's for people to have serious discussions in a "civil" manner, without people coming in and either being jerks or taking the thread off-topic.

Also, I fail to see how creating a new forum limits your freedom. The rest of the forum stays the same as it was.

Take A69 and the Adult Lounge sections for example: posting posts with explicit, adult content outside these sections will lead to a ban, so the existence of them did force a constraint on every member to behave outside these sections.

I assumed the same with the serious section but in reverse: some will not be serious except in the serious section, and posts outside it will not be taken seriously by some.
I hope I made sense

The two aren't really comparable. A69 and the Adult Lounge gave members the ability to post stuff that they couldn't before.

The proposed new forum just has some extra restrictions on what can be posted, a bit like the Introductions forum (where you aren't allowed to use insulting language). The rest of the forum remains the same as before. To my knowledge, the restriction on insulting / rude language in the Introductions forum didn't have any effect on people using insulting / rude language elsewhere.

[WinterHold]

Take A69 and the Adult Lounge sections for example: posting posts with explicit, adult content outside these sections will lead to a ban, so the existence of them did force a constraint on every member to behave outside these sections.

I assumed the same with the serious section but in reverse: some will not be serious except in the serious section, and posts outside it will not be taken seriously by some.
I hope I made sense

The two aren't really comparable. A69 and the Adult Lounge gave members the ability to post stuff that they couldn't before.

The proposed new forum just has some extra restrictions on what can be posted, a bit like the Introductions forum (where you aren't allowed to use insulting language). The rest of the forum remains the same as before. To my knowledge, the restriction on insulting / rude language in the Introductions forum didn't have any effect on people using insulting / rude language elsewhere.

Maybe I'm too sensitive when it comes to rules and regulations. I can see your point; though, it makes sense.

[Edwardo Piet]

If this thing happens, everyone will have to follow the rules. Theists and atheists alike.

I hope it happens. I actually need to practice not being a douche but without valid consequences for my actions it's difficult. So I'd love to hang out there and follow the rules there in order to avoid getting removed from there.

---

Yup, staying on topic should be a rule. Good catch. However there should be some leeway, sometimes related topics can be brought up to make a point in a discussion.

I think context is important for determining if language is insulting. “You’re ignorant” can be used as an insult but can also be a way of challenging someone’s knowledge. “You’re willfully ignorant” is always an insult though, the implication is that the person is purposefully ignoring certain facts.

I'm happy to go with that.

---

That's because shells not a bitch

That’s a horrible thing to say. Stop spreading these heinous lies about me.

I misread that as "hilarious lies" and then made myself laugh.

---

My only objection would be on the strawman front. I don't think staff should have to determine whether an argument is a strawman or not. If an argument is a strawman, the person responding should be able to point that out and correct the person making the argument.

Yeah. It's super annoying when it happens constantly and you're constantly taking the other person's words out of your mouth and wasting large posts on their points all while they never address your points or what you actually say, though.

But. I agree it shouldn't be a rule because it's not like there's any way to prove it's being done on purpose, over and over and over and over. Not repeatedly strawmanning everything that comes out of someone's mouth and dodging everything so as to actually have a non-frustrating and worthwhile and productive discussion isn't something that can be regulated, so I appreciate that.

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

Oh so Judy's resorting to bald faced lies now? I quoted you VERBATIM, if you think you have evidence that I changed the wording of your post in anyway, then provide it.

Making false reports is abuse of the reporting system.

You intentionally took my quote out of context and used it for your own purposes. THAT is a violation of the rules.

---

Besides - you are presuming to know what I've done. I didn't use the reporting system.

So you don't know squat.

Here's your full quote in reponse to one of my quotes:

Claiming people serve God because they are afraid of Hell is like saying people don't commit murder because they are afraid of the death penalty.

That depends on which god you are talking about. If you are talking about a loving god, one who keeps the peace, puts an end to suffering, sickness and starvation, then no, I suppose he shouldn't be feared. But if you are talking about the god of your bible, you know, the one who performed mass genocide, constantly threatens his "people" that in order to get to the pearly white gates, they must obey him, otherwise they suffer eternal damnation in hell. That's the one I'm talking about.

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

*emphasis mine*

I put the part I quoted in bold.

Now please explain the context in which the part in bold means something completely different from what you said; I'm all ears.

[Joods]

You intentionally took my quote out of context and used it for your own purposes. THAT is a violation of the rules.

---

Besides - you are presuming to know what I've done. I didn't use the reporting system.

So you don't know squat.

Here's your full quote in reponse to one of my quotes:

That depends on which god you are talking about. If you are talking about a loving god, one who keeps the peace, puts an end to suffering, sickness and starvation, then no, I suppose he shouldn't be feared. But if you are talking about the god of your bible, you know, the one who performed mass genocide, constantly threatens his "people" that in order to get to the pearly white gates, they must obey him, otherwise they suffer eternal damnation in hell. That's the one I'm talking about.

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

*emphasis mine*

I put the part I quoted in bold.

Now please explain the context in which the part in bold means something completely different from what you said; I'm all ears.

1. Not relevant to THIS thread. 
2. I've reported it because I am sick and tired of you quote mining people for your own personal gain. My three year old post had NOTHING to do with the thread you dragged it in. You clearly took it out of context which is a clear violation of the Misquoting rule.

[Huggy Bear]

Here's your full quote in reponse to one of my quotes:

*emphasis mine*

I put the part I quoted in bold.

Now please explain the context in which the part in bold means something completely different from what you said; I'm all ears.

1. Not relevant to THIS thread. 
2. I've reported it because I am sick and tired of you quote mining people for your own personal gain. My three year old post had NOTHING to do with the thread you dragged it in. You clearly took it out of context which is a clear violation of the Misquoting rule.

It IS relevant to this thread since you accused me of violating rules in this thread.

Quoting Others Inaccurately

When quoting another member of the forums, whether using quote tags or putting quotes between quotation marks, members may quote them in whole or in part, but may not change the quoted text by adding, modifying, or deleting words. An exception to this rule is where the member is paraphrasing, provided that the paraphrased quote does not change the meaning of the original quote, or takes the quote out of its original context.

*Emphasis mine*

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/paraphrase

paraphrase
1. a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.

Again, explain what you actually meant by stating:

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

[Joods]

Continue to play this game with yourself. You clearly knew what you were doing when you used my quote OUT OF CONTEXT. Fuck off. You are now on ignore.

[Angrboda]

Oh Lordy! Huggy's got his big Dic out again!

[Huggy Bear]

How'd you know it was big?

[SaStrike]

racial stereotypes