I’d like to propose a more formal kind of thread but only in terms of rigour, and not as a restriction on topic and discussion types. I have put theis thread in the philosophy section because how we discuss things is itself a philosophy, and one which I feel needs to itself be discussed.
If you make or reply to an ILP_thread
You should either publicly concede a point or reply in full to a given point.
If asked, you should concede an entire reply or answer it in full.
Your replies must be specifically on topic.
If you make a relevant tangent: make a new thread, reply on the ILP_thread stating its title and purpose.
Emotion in debating is irrelevant, don’t do it here.
Egoism, scoring points and any manner of putdowns are infantile, don’t do it here.
don’t discuss grammar or anything extraneous to the point and meaning of the thread. If you feel the meaning can be put in a more grammatically correct manner, and without that demeaning the context and art as the author sees it, then make another thread where it can be debated.
Long dead ILP_threads should be remade and relevant points taken from it, or restarted from new.
Do not noticeably bypass other replies bar the one you are replying to. If asked you should reply or concede points made in non-answered replies.
Make solid opening points, if the post is on a well known issue then state the accepted argument/s plus your own if different. Preferably state the argument you agree with or are arguing against, and do it in as expedient manner as possible, or link to the given argument/s.
Back up your claims. If you are debating from a known stand point, then back it up with links to that argument.
Accept art. Philosophy can be formal and rather cold, if a reply is made which does not conform to a given argument or standard, then it doesn’t have to be made to! Many of the above points are for clarification on known arguments, unknown or otherwise new arguments [even if assumed] should be taken as they are and hence do not have to conform to given standards. There is not much point if all we are doing is reiterating known arguments, without an attempt to find new meaning.
Humans are ghastly, so try to rise above the mire and be gentile!
If you would like to add or take anything away from the above, please debate here.
You sir are a gentlemen and a scholar. I prefer not to be tied down by rules and such, whether they are self imposed or not, but nonetheless I couldn’t disagree… aside from them being rules. Rules and me well, I bend them when I feel like I have suffered enough, whether it be my fault, the world’s, or nobodys. But I don’t go to severe extremes that affect my life negatively. I hope. (Actually I’m pretty sure I’m good at that). Ok enough of the ramble…
I think most of the posters who have been here for a while already know those rules, and in as much as they can try to stick to them. But it’s a neat list none the less.
I think it’s best to keep a forum rule lite, and just have basics like illegality: porn, breach of copyright etc and no trolling, flaming and so on. You know the score. When you make it specific there’s always some wise ass that can find a loophole.
I had considered it so that the manner of debating is itself a philosophy and a debate, rather than simply a question?
Thanks, yea I like to bend the rules too, but these are just asking us to discuss things with gentlemanly and ladylike conduct, and without what can often be a good debate going off the rails. We can do all the rule breaking we like in sister threads of same ilk and elsewhere.
For the most part it is probably better to be less strict, after all a conversation moves in tangents. I just thought it would be better if there was a thread type [as opposed to stricter forum rules generally], in which people would be expected to bother a bit more, to make solid points, not contradict those, and not talk over each other. Its rude if we done it in real life.
Loopholes may be found, but with greater rigour far less of them. Either way they can usually be shown to be on a tangent to the given meaning or a topic or reply to that.
I disagree can or could are equally viable here, because he could or indeed can equally be referring to a present tense where someone is disputing something current (given the context I think that is what he meant) in as much as considering a past tense where it has been disputed on a thread related to the dispute after the fact, it can in a moment be considered present rather than past.
Already exists in debate if I’m not mistaken but I agree in principle that some forums should have somewhat stricter rules on the stupid.
Depends on the thread, sometimes it’s just anal retentive nonsense to divert the thread away from the topic so some numb nuts can avoid tackling any significant points. Particularly true on hot topics were emotions are high. That said I don’t say grammarians are a bad thing, but they do have there place.
Aoccdrnig to rsceearh at an elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit graet porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.
PS: that apparently isn’t a real study, and the preceding lines do have a hint of truth to them, but only a hint – obviously there’s some there, as I can pretty easily read that.
This pertains to the problem, most of us would probably not talk to each other the way we do here if we were face to face. Unless I suppose we knew each other very well. The point though is that one talks on constant tangents and meaning is never arrived at.
Somehow I could actually read that. Perhaps grammatical corrections could be placed as a footnote, though I have yet to see anything productive come out of it.
And we’re off, chasing those tangents amid the barking of dogs and the blare of hunting horns.
I guess I make a lot of etiquette mistakes of which I’m not aware. If I become aware of them, I apologize as soon as I can. (Or I get warned.) So I believe people should apologize more often. I also try to write for all readers, not just the poster I’m answering–especially if I’m being didactic which, as you all know, I so often am. I think we should all talk to each other as if we were in a very open place–because we are. By the way, the MW Dictionary often lists obscure insults like ‘cockalorum’ or ‘snollygoster’, both of which could describe some of the people here.
Oh, btw, tab, while ‘can’ is present tense, it also implies a fact–I can ride a bike, ‘Could’, on the other hand, implies something that might have happened, but didn’t.
This pertains to the problem, most of us would probably not talk to each other the way we do here if we were face to face. Unless I suppose we knew each other very well. The point though is that one talks on constant tangents and meaning is never arrived at.
