Staredit Network

I interpreted the rule as providing sources if people ask for them. So we are in agreement there.

It's not enforced enough. I think that at least 1 and 2 should be enforced everywhere, or at least in LD.

Sources == good

Sources are good, yes.
Although making and enforcing a rule saying you need them isn't right.
It's basically taking further action against someone who poorly presented their point, as if wasting their own time typing because no one's going to believe them wasn't punishment enough.

I agree with points 1 and 2, and like the principle behind the others but think they need a bit of refining.

3. I agree that it is important to cite sources (an an historian, I'm only too aware of that), but I don't think that a rule enforcing citation is appropriate in this context. This is a site with a userbase consisting, in the most part, of early to mid teens. These ages groups often do not understand the importance of source citation and will not do it anyway. Also, I think that discussion would be stifled by mandatory source citation - it is a tiring process, especially when you have to link to sites and give footnotes, and people just wouldn't bother to post at all. That said, there is a lot of misinformed rubbish in SD which I would like to get rid of.

As a counter-proposal, perhaps a post voting/approval system could be put in place, whereby posts have a rating out of 5 for quality, and other members can rate them, their score being the average of ratings received.

4. I think that it is only appropriate to lock topics when a debate has become circular or devolved into something completely off-topic. Cases where things 'just are' are rare - such as the molecular formula of water.

5. Gratuitous personal attacks I agree are unacceptable, but a degree of self-reflexivity and pointing out when a person's views might be affected by their ideological assumptions is important. I think that cases where someone is bringing up the political standpoint, religious affiliation etc. of the person they are arguing against, should only be punished when it is being used as a term of abuse.

That's about all I can say.

Even that. We know for a fact what the chemical formula of water is, so if anyone is arguing that it's something else there's still somebody who is in a very real sense wrong. I still haven't come up with any actual case where something 'just is' and you can't be right or wrong about it.

A case where something just is, and there isn't anything right or wrong about it? Personal preferences.

I think that all living rooms look "better" when painted purple.
I'm hetero/homosexual and I think it's "better" to be homo/heterosexual.
I'm Jewish/Muslim/Lutheran/Catholic/Animist/Atheist/Zoroastrianist/Buddhist/Pastafarian and I think religion X is "better" than religion Y.
I think that it's "better" to bake cookies at 351 degrees fahrenheit than 350.
I think classical/rock/rap/techno/country/hip hop/gregorian chant/choral/funk is "better" than all others.
I think meat/vegetable lasanga is "better".

The first and fifth of those are primarily matters of opinion, however all the others are grounded in fact and can be shown to be right or wrong (and if you want to get really technical even the first and fifth could probably be shown to be right or wrong).

Those things can be better - for individuals. Unless forcibly eliminated or silenced, they can never become universally right or wrong.

I think this is beginning to plumb the depths of pedantry and argument for argument's sake.

I think we should quit arguing about the semantics and just write some rules, leaving out the 'just is' part.

EDIT: I'll rewrite the rule and post up the set of rules.

You could say that, yes.

Perhaps the 'just is/are' part is a misleading term. What I take it to mean is a debate over a fact which is incontrovertible, thus rendering argument a pointless exercise.

I know that there are weaknesses to that, but I'm working on an essay right now and I can't really devote much time to correcting the doubtless logical flaws.

I also would like to propose a rule whereby topic creators can have their topics locked or be requested to rewrite their original post if it is deemed to be lacking in thought or debateable material.

Those usually end up in Null or Lite Discussion, unless the moderator feels like salvaging the original topic post. I'd rather leave it up to them.

I don't think the poster is taking the discussion very seriously if they can't be bothered to give their sources (even if you have to say your source is just a friend who told you about it, it's better than misleading people). If you don't want to give out your source, chances are it's because your source isn't very credible and you'd rather be right than find the truth.

I second people getting warned for "1337" speak and using hardly recognizable language. "srsly." I also support using correct grammars and punctuations while in SD. It really helps the maturity of our community.

I also second the sources, and where it came from. Saying "wikipedia" doesn't count doesn't work anymore. Wikipedia is still a source whether or not accurate in the matter of specific terms.

I will also say, Moderators like you moose shouldn't edit your own minerals.

That's not a rule for Serious Discussion.

I don't really side with this one, it's a little too excessive. Everyone knows that Christians and Evolutionists tend to bring vicious cycles into arguments. But closing the whole topic down and forcing it to be recreated at some other obscure time wont stop them, it would just annoy people.

People can have preferences, yes, but for most things you can find an objective criterion by which pretty much everything is actually good or actually bad.

No kidding, who thought up giving them that ability? I sure hope it just displays that way and he can't actually use all those minerals...

Minerals really do not matter. They can't really do anything either, other than buy a few random things in the store and let you play a few random games.

Okay... Let me reconstruct my ideas.

-The requirement of using correct language in order to better understanding.
-Making people avoid using slippery slopes and other misfunctions in loop'de hoop logic.
-Avoiding the use of profane words or simply "disgusting word use" such as "stuff", "things" and using more elaborate words.
-Avoiding pernicious statement towards the person.
-The use of correct discussion starting method.