[meta] RULES

soulcakeduck · 2013-08-29T20:06:07+00:00

On how PurplePill engages the Red and the Blue

I believe that the well-intentioned rules of this subreddit are being enforced in a way that can undermine most debate, paving a path for little more than concern trolls and JAQing off. I intend to constructively look at the rule and ask how it can be better formed.

Debaters do not always agree on what their respective positions are. I personally think of this as "definitions." EG, "Is abortion murder?" may need to be resolved to determine if pro-choicers must justify murder. If there's agreement over definitions, there's still "policy" debate questions about what abortions are permissible.

Debates often reject, after defining, someone else's position. That process can have errors, so someone may define another person's position incorrectly. That's natural, and opens the door for a definition-rebuttal that can resolve the debate.

I believe definition debate is too restricted here, based on a few submissions (including one of my own) being modded out, and a mod-conversation that followed.

Moderators seem to have two concerns. Here I am, defining your position :) Please add or correct as needed:

People who may have mistakenly defined their opposition are being rude or trolling. I disagree as argued above; this is a natural part of debates.
People defining someone else's position may link to supporting evidence. Links may be specific to individuals instead of philosophy, or may be offensive in violation of PurplePill rules. I disagree: citing supporting discussions is a way to make the discussion less personal (particularly when those citations are from TRP's sidebar or prominent Red Pill figures). And if we cannot link to content that may be offensive, there may be nothing at all left that is worth discussing.

Of course, a troll may do any of those things, but those things are not inherently trolling. So moderating out the trolls is admittedly complicated. Trolls can abuse the current rule even easier though.

The alternative I was offered via mod-PM was to start a debate by inviting my opposition to define their position for me. But, that is exactly what any debater does when they describe what they believe their (op)position is, and my post even noted the description was debatable.

There are many problems with only opening with questions.

a. This changes most (all?) submissions to JAQ offs (Just Asking Questions). Think Glenn Beck. Instead of "Here is the argument I think is wrong and my reasons," all discussions take the form of "Is this something my opposition believes? I don't know, I am JAQ!" And concern trolling, "I'm worried my opposition might believe something, but won't point to specific details."

b. This effectively makes the first rule of PurplePill, "only discuss PurplePill." Linking elsewhere discouraged.

c. Bad faith, bad traffic, leading questions. Elsewhere, /u/soulcakeduck might say "Kill all puppies," but we can't link it in PurplePill. We can ask, "Does my opposition want to kill puppies?" I might never answer the question, might lie, or might answer it incorrectly (after all, it is a leading question, and the context is not clear/cannot be presented).

My alternative: allow definitions debate. If the "pill on the defensive" does not agree with the characterization given of them, that is why the debate exists.

Trolls may evade definitions debate (ignoring their opposition's definition-rebuttal), or will be overly narrow (linking to DownvotedNobodyThrowaway and pretending it is ideology orthodoxy).

IRScientist · 2013-08-29T20:51:38+00:00

I would add some example of things that were removed and why, plus some conversations that you thought were good, and others that were borderline.

I think part of your difficulty is the fact that gender politics are just ugly. People who are interested in circlejerking will do so, and can probably do so under the radar. People are going to pose as curious and ask questions, and then ignore the responses.

Also, maybe just take off the downvote/upvote buttons or hide them, cuz goddamn I really want to downvote people although I understand why I'm not supposed to.

unf-unff-unfff · 2013-08-29T18:37:25+00:00

Ooh, good timing! See my most recent post please, haha :)

SpermJackalope · 2013-08-30T14:17:09+00:00

Can we please have a rule like "You don't get to dismiss academic evidence as inferior to your own thoughts"? Or "Saying 'Marxism' is not an argument"?

This stuff kills the entire purpose of the sub, and it personally enrages me.

Title	[meta] RULES
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	5
Comments	6
Date	August 29, 2013 6:33 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1lci97/meta_rules/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/meta-rules.286832 https://theredarchive.com/post/286832

Comments