On Balance, the new DDO site policy reform is generally good.

Con's CaseAs I am the con in this debate, I will present arguments that set out to prove that the policy at issue, and it's impact, are negatives to this site. Argument 1: Some things in said policy are not even personal attacks:Now, this may look odd to some. It is likely that many people believed that the things laid out in this policy are indeed personal attacks. They have to be, right? Well, let's take a look at the definition of personal attack:"Making of an abusive remark on or relating to one's person instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments."(1)Now, to some, this may not be proving much at all. They may still be thinking that indeed, such things laid out in the policy adhere to this definiton of 'Personal Attack'. Well, let's take a look at maybe the most controversial thing listed in this policy: The Direct Attack. In the policy, Direct Attacks are defined as: "Where, outside the context of a discussion on the topic or of behavior in the course of that discussion, someone posts something negative about a specific member"(2)In the definition of personal attack, that I showed, this actually would not meet the criteria of being a personal attack. Sure, a lot of the time, a Direct Attack, as defined by this, could very well be qualified as abusive. But the second half of the criteria doesn't seem to match up with this broad definition of 'Direct Attack'. A direct attack, as defined in the policy, could easily be proven, in which the 'Direct Attacker' could provide evidence based on claims or comments from that person. Now, are all 'Direct Attacks' proved by the people who deliver them? No, I wouldn't say that. However, this policy bans everything that could fall under the definition given of 'Direct Attack', and some of these 'Direct Attacks' wouldn't fall under the definition of a 'personal attack'. If it can be justified objectively, it shouldn't be banned, which brings me to my second argument.Argument 2: Limits the threshold of debating:As established in my last argument, 'Direct Attacks' can very well be justified. With this policy, we can't present these 'Direct Attacks', as they have been banned in this new policy. However, the policy is not only banning the 'Direct Attacks' themselves. No, this policy would eliminate any possible dialogue or debate for said 'Direct Attack'. Now, this site is a huge proponent of Debate. Look no further than your URL for evidence. So, eliminating a topic of debate should be considered a serious infraction on this site's arguably main purpose. If we are eliminating an entire topic of debate, we are destroying a core principle of the site. On a debating site, we should be allowed to debate any such issues that can even be debated upon. With the banning of the 'Direct Attack', we are eliminating any potential defense of the 'Attack' that a user may have, and we are also eliminating any criticism of that 'Direct Attack'. The elimination of debate removes any oppurtunity for the user to defend/argue on the topic of that personal attack, and a potential oppurtunity of insight and efucation, would be eradicated. With this banishment, we are attacking one of the core principles of the site, and I consider that to be a pretty big negative.Round 2 Conclusion:In this round of debate, I have taken a firm stance that this policy discriminates against some things that don't even fall under the definition of 'Personal Attack'. The policy would destroy any possible debate that could come from the usage of a 'Direct Attack'. This is a severe comrpomising to this site's key principle of debate, and should therefore be seen as a negative to the site.I look forward to the next round of debating, which is the 'Free Choice Round'(1): http://en.wiktionary.org...(2): http://www.debate.org...